Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1926–2009 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Louisiana Associated Gen. Contr. v. Calcasieugreen2 sentences2009Louisiana Associated General Contractors, Inc. v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd., 586 So.2d 1354, 1367 (La.1991); Green v. Louisiana Underwriters Ins. 2009Louisiana Associated General Contractors, Inc. v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd., 586 So.2d 1354, 1367 (La.1991); Green v. Louisiana Underwriters Ins. | 1 | 1 |
O'Rourke v. O'Rourkegreen2 sentences1973Complete absence of the enacting clause renders the statute invalid; see O'Rourke v. O'Rourke, 69 So.2d 567 (La. 1973Complete absence of the enacting clause renders the statute invalid; see O'Rourke v. O'Rourke, 69 So.2d 567 (La. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Baumangreen2 sentences1954See also State v. Bauman, 148 La. 743 , 87 So. 732 ." *575 However, an examination of those documents does not disclose whether the enacting clause was present when the act was introduced or when it was passed, and from the fact that it does not appear in the printed volume of acts, we conclude that the act was originally and finally defective, and that, as it was passed, it did not contain the necessary enacting clause. 1954See also State v. Bauman, 148 La. 743 , 87 So. 732 ." *575 However, an examination of those documents does not disclose whether the enacting clause was present when the act was introduced or when it was passed, and from the fact that it does not appear in the printed volume of acts, we conclude that the act was originally and finally defective, and that, as it was passed, it did not contain the necessary enacting clause. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Toney v. Whitfield
green
1 sentence1988In our original opinion we held this provision to be an unconstitutional violation of due process because it was not reasonably related to the objective of the statute of securing prompt filing of the record and prompt judicial review. 521 So.2d at 409 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
O'Rourke v. O'Rourke
neutral
2 sentences1973App. 1954) (rev'd in part on other grounds, 1955, 227 La. 262 , 79 So.2d 87 ). 1973App. 1954) (rev'd in part on other grounds, 1955, 227 La. 262 , 79 So.2d 87 ). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Killingsworth v. State
neutral
1 sentence1973Bank v. Howard, 59 Okl. 134 , 138 P. 438 (1916), which refused attorney's fees as unprovided by 12 U.S.C. § 86 (then R.S. 5198), does not address the question (yet awarded other costs, which are equally unprovided by 12 U.S.C. § 86 ). [5] "The style of the laws of this State shall be: `Be it enacted by the Legislature of of Louisiana.' It shall not be necessary to repeat said enacting clause after the first section of an act." The usual practice of labeling intended law as "An Act" (in addition to using the enacting clause), while resolutions may be labeled "A Concurrent Resolution", might log | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Bethlehem Supply Co. v. Pan-Southern Petroleum Corp.
neutral
2 sentences1954(N. S.) [400] 402; Lallande v. Terrill, 12 La. 7 ." In the statute which is under attack before us we do not find even the words "Be it enacted." In State v. Fore, 131 La. 813 , 60 So. 255, 256 , there was an enacting clause which was attacked because the words "section first" were not placed at the beginning of the clause but after the words "General Assembly." The Court said: "* * * The act is not made unconstitutional by this slight change of placing the words `section first' as they are." In Bethlehem Supply Co. v. Pan-Southern Petroleum Corporation, 207 La. 149 , 20 So.2d 737 . 740. a sta 1954(N. S.) [400] 402; Lallande v. Terrill, 12 La. 7 ." In the statute which is under attack before us we do not find even the words "Be it enacted." In State v. Fore, 131 La. 813 , 60 So. 255, 256 , there was an enacting clause which was attacked because the words "section first" were not placed at the beginning of the clause but after the words "General Assembly." The Court said: "* * * The act is not made unconstitutional by this slight change of placing the words `section first' as they are." In Bethlehem Supply Co. v. Pan-Southern Petroleum Corporation, 207 La. 149 , 20 So.2d 737 . 740. a sta | 1 | 1954–1954 |
In Re Bryant
neutral
2 sentences1954In reaching the conclusion that the statute of 1944 is unconstitutional because of the total absence of any portion of an enacting clause, we have not overlooked the fact that in the matter of In re Bryant, 214 La. 573 , 38 So.2d 245, 249 , our Supreme Court was called upon to consider and discuss several sections of that statute, Act 303 of 1944, and finally based its "decision solely on the provisions of Act No. 303 of 1944 under which plaintiff was committed." This is the same statute which we now have the temerity to declare unconstitutional. 1954In reaching the conclusion that the statute of 1944 is unconstitutional because of the total absence of any portion of an enacting clause, we have not overlooked the fact that in the matter of In re Bryant, 214 La. 573 , 38 So.2d 245, 249 , our Supreme Court was called upon to consider and discuss several sections of that statute, Act 303 of 1944, and finally based its "decision solely on the provisions of Act No. 303 of 1944 under which plaintiff was committed." This is the same statute which we now have the temerity to declare unconstitutional. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
State v. Cucullu
green
2 sentences1954The Court cited many decisions on the subject, and held that the total absence of an enacting clause renders such a statute unconstitutional. *574 To revert to the decision of the Supreme Court in City of Shreveport v. Dale, supra, we note that the Court cited State v. Cucullu, 110 La. 1087 , 35 So. 300, 301 . 1954The Court cited many decisions on the subject, and held that the total absence of an enacting clause renders such a statute unconstitutional. *574 To revert to the decision of the Supreme Court in City of Shreveport v. Dale, supra, we note that the Court cited State v. Cucullu, 110 La. 1087 , 35 So. 300, 301 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
State v. Fore
neutral
2 sentences1954(N. S.) [400] 402; Lallande v. Terrill, 12 La. 7 ." In the statute which is under attack before us we do not find even the words "Be it enacted." In State v. Fore, 131 La. 813 , 60 So. 255, 256 , there was an enacting clause which was attacked because the words "section first" were not placed at the beginning of the clause but after the words "General Assembly." The Court said: "* * * The act is not made unconstitutional by this slight change of placing the words `section first' as they are." In Bethlehem Supply Co. v. Pan-Southern Petroleum Corporation, 207 La. 149 , 20 So.2d 737 . 740. a sta 1954(N. S.) [400] 402; Lallande v. Terrill, 12 La. 7 ." In the statute which is under attack before us we do not find even the words "Be it enacted." In State v. Fore, 131 La. 813 , 60 So. 255, 256 , there was an enacting clause which was attacked because the words "section first" were not placed at the beginning of the clause but after the words "General Assembly." The Court said: "* * * The act is not made unconstitutional by this slight change of placing the words `section first' as they are." In Bethlehem Supply Co. v. Pan-Southern Petroleum Corporation, 207 La. 149 , 20 So.2d 737 . 740. a sta | 1 | 1954–1954 |
City of Shreveport v. Dale
neutral
2 sentences1954The Court cited many decisions on the subject, and held that the total absence of an enacting clause renders such a statute unconstitutional. *574 To revert to the decision of the Supreme Court in City of Shreveport v. Dale, supra, we note that the Court cited State v. Cucullu, 110 La. 1087 , 35 So. 300, 301 . 1954The Court cited many decisions on the subject, and held that the total absence of an enacting clause renders such a statute unconstitutional. *574 To revert to the decision of the Supreme Court in City of Shreveport v. Dale, supra, we note that the Court cited State v. Cucullu, 110 La. 1087 , 35 So. 300, 301 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
State v. Harris
neutral
1 sentence1954It is true that the Supreme Court did say that, in State v. Harris, 47 La.Ann. 386 , 17 So. 129 , it had clearly indicated its opinion that the "constitutional provision is merely directory." However, an examination of the opinion of the Supreme Court in State v. Harris, supra, convinces us that the Court did not express the view that the omission of the entire clause would not have had the effect of vitiating such a statute. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Lallande v. Terrill
green
1 sentence1954(N. S.) [400] 402; Lallande v. Terrill, 12 La. 7 ." In the statute which is under attack before us we do not find even the words "Be it enacted." In State v. Fore, 131 La. 813 , 60 So. 255, 256 , there was an enacting clause which was attacked because the words "section first" were not placed at the beginning of the clause but after the words "General Assembly." The Court said: "* * * The act is not made unconstitutional by this slight change of placing the words `section first' as they are." In Bethlehem Supply Co. v. Pan-Southern Petroleum Corporation, 207 La. 149 , 20 So.2d 737 . 740. a sta | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Louisville Trust Co. v. Morgan
neutral
2 sentences1954In the Harris case there was present an enacting clause, which was defective in that there were omitted therefrom the words "of the State of Louisiana," the clause merely reading: "Be it enacted by the general assembly." The Court, after referring to the fact that in another State in the Constitution of which there was a provision "similar to our own" it had been held that the omission of the entire enacting clause would vitiate the statute, expressly directed attention to the fact that in the case before it, the Harris case, "the omission is only of the words `of the state of Louisiana'" and 1954In the Harris case there was present an enacting clause, which was defective in that there were omitted therefrom the words "of the State of Louisiana," the clause merely reading: "Be it enacted by the general assembly." The Court, after referring to the fact that in another State in the Constitution of which there was a provision "similar to our own" it had been held that the omission of the entire enacting clause would vitiate the statute, expressly directed attention to the fact that in the case before it, the Harris case, "the omission is only of the words `of the state of Louisiana'" and | 1 | 1954–1954 |
State v. Coco
green
2 sentences1926The identical question here under consideration was before us in State v. Coco, 152 La. 241 , 92 So. 883 . 1926The identical question here under consideration was before us in State v. Coco, 152 La. 241 , 92 So. 883 . | 1 | 1926–1926 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.