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 1 courts 1998–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bennettgreen2 sentences2010See also State v. Bennett, 544 So.2d 661 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1989). 2010See also State v. Bennett, 544 So.2d 661 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1989). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Langendorfergreen2 sentences2010The fourth circuit reversed the trial court's ruling, stating the following: It is well-established by the Louisiana jurisprudence that a second multiple bill hearing does not place a defendant in double jeopardy because "[s]uch a proceeding is merely a part of sentencing." State v. Langendorfer, 389 So.2d 1271, 1277 (La.1980). 2010The fourth circuit reversed the trial court’s ruling, stating the following: It is well-established by the Louisiana jurisprudence that a second multiple bill hearing does not place a defendant in double jeopardy because “[sjuch a proceeding is merely a part of sentencing.” State v. Langendorfer, 389 So.2d 1271, 1277 (La.1980). | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Langlois
green
2 sentences2013In State v. Langlois, 96-0084, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/21/97), 695 So.2d 540, 543 , in which a first multiple offender adjudication had been vacated, the defendant argued that the fifteen to seventeen month delay in holding a second multiple bill hearing was unreasonable. 2000In State v. Langlois, 96-0084 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/21/97) , 695 So.2d 540 , writ granted *1118 in part on other grounds and remanded, 97-1491 (La.11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1281 , the defendant, whose first multiple offender adjudication had been vacated, argued that the fifteen to seventeen month delay in holding a second multiple bill hearing was unreasonable. | 2 | 2000–2013 |
State ex rel. Van Winkle v. State
neutral
2 sentences2001In State v. Langlois, 96-0084, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/21/97), 695 So.2d 544 -545, writ granted in part on other grounds and remanded, 97-1491 (La.11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1281 , the defendant, whose first multiple offender adjudication had been vacated, argued that the fifteen to seventeen month delay in holding a second multiple bill hearing was unreasonable. 2000In State v. Langlois, 96-0084 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/21/97) , 695 So.2d 540 , writ granted *1118 in part on other grounds and remanded, 97-1491 (La.11/14/97), 703 So.2d 1281 , the defendant, whose first multiple offender adjudication had been vacated, argued that the fifteen to seventeen month delay in holding a second multiple bill hearing was unreasonable. | 2 | 2000–2001 |
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.