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.
154 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCorvey v. McCorveygreen2 sentences2026See also McCorvey v. McCorvey, 2005-174, p. 6 (La. App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05), 916 So.2d 357, 363 (noting the appellant argued on appeal that the trial 26 court erred in denying his motion for change of venue, yet the appellant “cite[d] no case law in support of the change of venue”). 2018State v. Marie, 07-397 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/27/07) , 973 So.2d 780 ; See also McCorvey v. McCorvey , 05-174 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/2/05) , 916 So.2d 357 , writ denied , 05-2577 (La. 5/5/06), 927 So.2d 300 ; Uniform Rules-Courts of Appeal, Rule 2-12.4. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mariegreen2 sentences2026The court may deem as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review which has not been briefed.” To properly brief an issue under that rule, a party cannot merely “[r]estat[e] an assigned error in brief without argument or citation of authority.” State v. Marie, 2007-397, p. 3 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/27/07), 973 So.2d 780, 781 (citing State v. Lauff, 2006-717, p. 9 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07), 953 So.2d 813 , 819). 2025State v. Marie, 07-397 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/27/07), 973 So.2d 780, 781 . | 1 | 4 |
State v. Brittgreen2 sentences1990State v. Britt, 510 So.2d 670, 672 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). 1989State v. Britt, 510 So.2d 670 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987). | 1 | 2 |
Cormier v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co.green1 sentence2023Co., 12-0892, p. 9 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/6/13), 109 So.3d 509, 515 (quoting State v. Caffrey, 08-0717, p. 7 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 15 So.3d 198 , 9 203). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit. 2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit. | 1 | 1 |
State of Louisiana v. Widner Degruygreen2 sentences2021See State v. DeGruy, 2020-0290, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/29/20), 307 So.3d 258 , 263 (“This Court, having vacated and remanded DeGruy’s second degree murder convictions, conspiracy to commit second degree murder conviction and the respective sentences, pursuant to Ramos, renders this assigned error [i.e., that the sentences were excessive,] moot as to those sentences.”2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s convictions and sentences are vacated as a result of the non-unanimous verdicts and the matter remanded for further proceedings. 2021See State v. DeGruy, 2020-0290, p. 6 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/29/20), 307 So.3d 258 , 263 (“This Court, having vacated and remanded DeGruy’s second degree murder convictions, conspiracy to commit second degree murder conviction and the respective sentences, pursuant to Ramos, renders this assigned error [i.e., that the sentences were excessive,] moot as to those sentences.”2 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s convictions and sentences are vacated as a result of the non-unanimous verdicts and the matter remanded for further proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Edwards v. Vannoygreen1 sentence2021However, state remain free, if they choose, to retroactively apply the jury-unanimity rule as a matter of state law in post-conviction proceedings. 141 S.Ct. at 1559. 18 defendant’s convictions and respective sentences must be vacated pursuant to Ramos, supra, this assigned error is moot. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hearoldgreen | 1 | 1 |
| McCorvey v. McCorveygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Foretgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Gaalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dunbargreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Herman v. Krezdorngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dortheygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lineargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Oliveaux
green
2 sentences2011The arguments raised by defendant in this assigned error are likewise without merit. *507 ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990). 2004Accordingly, this assigned error is without merit. [5] We have also reviewed the record for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990). | 65 | 2000–2018 |
State v. Weiland
green
2 sentences2011The arguments raised by defendant in this assigned error are likewise without merit. *507 ERROR PATENT DISCUSSION The record was reviewed for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990). 2004Accordingly, this assigned error is without merit. [5] We have also reviewed the record for errors patent, according to LSA-C.Cr.P. art. 920; State v. Oliveaux, 312 So.2d 337 (La.1975); and State v. Weiland, 556 So.2d 175 (La.App. 5 Cir.1990). | 57 | 2001–2018 |
State v. Lauff
green
2 sentences2026The court may deem as abandoned any assignment of error or issue for review which has not been briefed.” To properly brief an issue under that rule, a party cannot merely “[r]estat[e] an assigned error in brief without argument or citation of authority.” State v. Marie, 2007-397, p. 3 (La. App. 5 Cir. 11/27/07), 973 So.2d 780, 781 (citing State v. Lauff, 2006-717, p. 9 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07), 953 So.2d 813 , 819). 2016Restating an assigned error in brief without including argument or citation of authority does not constitute briefing.” State v. Lauff, 06-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07) , 953 So.2d 813, 819 ). | 16 | 2007–2026 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences1995ASSIGNMENT NO. 5 This final assigned error maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support Rogers’ convictions under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). 1995ASSIGNMENT NO. 5 This final assigned error maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support Rogers’ convictions under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). | 6 | 1988–2009 |
State v. Fletcher
green
2 sentences2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t 2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t | 5 | 2010–2018 |
State v. Fletcher
green
2 sentences2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t 2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t | 5 | 2010–2018 |
State ex rel. Johnson v. State
neutral
2 sentences2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t 2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t | 5 | 2010–2018 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t 2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t | 5 | 2010–2018 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t 2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t | 5 | 2010–2018 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t 2018As noted in State v. Fletcher, 00-968, pp. 3-4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/6/00), 776 So.2d 1240 , 1243, writ denied, 01-342 (La. 12/14/01), 803 So.2d 986 , this court, addressing an assigned error, discussed the pertinent case law on this issue: While La.R.S. 15:529.1 does not specifically address the issue of a defendant's right to remain silent, in *825 State v. Johnson, 432 So.2d 815 (La.1983), writ granted on other grounds, 438 So.2d 1113 (La.1983), appeal after remand, 457 So.2d 1251 (La.App. 1 Cir.1984), appeal after remand, 471 So.2d 1041 (La.App. 1 Cir.1985), the supreme court concluded that t | 5 | 2010–2018 |
State v. Fernandez
neutral
2 sentences2014State v. Lauff, 06-717 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07) , 953 So.2d 813, 819 ; State v. Fernandez, 03-987, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/03), 864 So.2d 764, 770 . 2009U.R.C.A. 2-12.4; State v. Lauff, 06-717, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/13/07), 953 So.2d 813, 819 ; State v. Fernandez, 03-987, p. 9 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/30/03), 864 So.2d 764, 770 . | 3 | 2008–2014 |
State v. Winfrey
green
2 sentences2004In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 77 , writ denied, 98-264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , this Court addressed the defendant's assigned error only on the basis of the objection raised at trial, not the new basis urged for the first time on appeal. 2003In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 77 , writ denied, 98-264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , this Court addressed defendant's assigned error only on the basis of the objection raised at trial, not the new basis urged for the first time on appeal. | 3 | 2003–2007 |
State v. Inzina
green
2 sentences2007State v. Inzina, 31,439 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/9/98), 728 So.2d 458, 469 . 2003State v. Inzina, 31,439 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/9/98), 728 So.2d 458, 469 ; State v. Bell, 00-1084 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/28/01) , 781 So.2d 843, 848 , writ denied, 01-0776 (La.4/26/02), 813 So.2d 1098 . | 3 | 2003–2007 |
State v. Caffrey
green
2 sentences2023Co., 12-0892, p. 9 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/6/13), 109 So.3d 509, 515 (quoting State v. Caffrey, 08-0717, p. 7 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 15 So.3d 198 , 9 203). 2013Further, “[restating an assigned error in brief without argument or citation of authority does not constitute briefing.” State v. Caffrey, 08-717, p. 7 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/12/09), 15 So.3d 198, 203 , writ denied, 09-1305 (La.2/5/10), 27 So.3d 297 . | 2 | 2013–2023 |
State v. Elie
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 165. 1 In State v. Elie, 10-1494 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) , 74 So.3d 1216 , writ denied, 11-2786 (La.4/13/12), 85 So.3d 1246 , this court remanded the case for resentencing due to the defendant’s absence from sentencing, an assigned error.' On error patent review, this court noted: In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. 2012This must be corrected upon re-sentencing. \Jd. at 165. 2 Additionally, in State v. Elie, 10-1494 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) , 74 So.3d 1216 , writ denied, 11-2786 (La.4/13/12), 85 So.3d 1246 , this court remanded the case for resentencing due to the defendant’s absence from sentencing, an assigned error. | 2 | 2012–2015 |
State v. Elie
green
2 sentences2015Id. at 165. 1 In State v. Elie, 10-1494 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) , 74 So.3d 1216 , writ denied, 11-2786 (La.4/13/12), 85 So.3d 1246 , this court remanded the case for resentencing due to the defendant’s absence from sentencing, an assigned error.' On error patent review, this court noted: In accordance with La.Code Crim.P. art. 920, all appeals are reviewed for errors patent on the face of the record. 2012This must be corrected upon re-sentencing. \Jd. at 165. 2 Additionally, in State v. Elie, 10-1494 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/5/11) , 74 So.3d 1216 , writ denied, 11-2786 (La.4/13/12), 85 So.3d 1246 , this court remanded the case for resentencing due to the defendant’s absence from sentencing, an assigned error. | 2 | 2012–2015 |
State v. Mayer
green
2 sentences2009Citing Raymo , we reviewed the assigned error although the argument was not raised in the district court because the issue may bear upon the defendant's due process rights. 01-120 at 5, 792 So.2d at 912 . [3] We are also aware of Judge Cannella's dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 . 2009We are also aware of Judge Cannella’s dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Bowers
green
2 sentences2009Citing Raymo , we reviewed the assigned error although the argument was not raised in the district court because the issue may bear upon the defendant's due process rights. 01-120 at 5, 792 So.2d at 912 . [3] We are also aware of Judge Cannella's dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 . 2009Citing Raymo , we reviewed the assigned error although the argument was not raised in the district court because the issue may bear upon the defendant's due process rights. 01-120 at 5, 792 So.2d at 912 . . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Mayer
green
2 sentences2009Citing Raymo , we reviewed the assigned error although the argument was not raised in the district court because the issue may bear upon the defendant's due process rights. 01-120 at 5, 792 So.2d at 912 . [3] We are also aware of Judge Cannella's dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 . 2009We are also aware of Judge Cannella’s dissent in State v. Mayer, 98-1311 (La.App. 5 Cir. 9/28/99) , 743 So.2d 304, 308 , writ granted in part on other grounds, 99-3124 (La.3/31/00), 760 So.2d 309 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Winfrey
green
2 sentences2004In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 77 , writ denied, 98-264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , this Court addressed the defendant's assigned error only on the basis of the objection raised at trial, not the new basis urged for the first time on appeal. 2003In State v. Winfrey, 97-427 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/28/97) , 703 So.2d 63, 77 , writ denied, 98-264 (La.6/19/98), 719 So.2d 481 , this Court addressed defendant's assigned error only on the basis of the objection raised at trial, not the new basis urged for the first time on appeal. | 2 | 2003–2004 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences1995Notwithstanding the holdings in [ State v. ] Belgard [ 410 So.2d 720 ] [(La.1982)], [ State v. ] Thomas [ 427 So.2d 428 ] [(La.1982)], and [ State v. ] Latiolais [ 453 So.2d 1266 ] [(La.App. 3d Cir.1984)], we conclude instructional errors involving the very definition of the crime charged so threatens a defendant's basic due process rights that they compel reversal of Pyke's conviction and sentence. 1994Without mentioning the Williamson exception, the Supreme Court refused to consider the assigned error stating in a single sentence "... defendant did not object to this instruction at trial, and it is not reviewable on appeal." Again refusing to apply the Williamson exception in State v. Thomas, 427 So.2d 428 (La.1982), the Supreme Court said: "We express no opinion on whether this court will again grant review under the unique facts of Williamson , but leave that as an open question. | 2 | 1994–1995 |
Hurtado v. California
green
2 sentences2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit. 2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Alexander v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit. 2022Alexander v. Louisiana, 405 U.S. 625, 636 , 92 S.Ct. 1221 , 31 L.Ed.2d 536 (1972) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 122 , 28 L.Ed.2d 232 (1884)); State v. Young, 249 La. 609, 612 , 188 So.2d 421, 422 (1966) (“[I]t is not a violation of the Federal Constitution for a State to provide for prosecution of an infamous crime by information when the constitution of the State authorizes that procedure.) Based on the foregoing, this assigned error is without merit. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Pashandi neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Hudson v. Louisiana green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Cyriak neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Bullcoming v. New Mexico green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Porter green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Tapps green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Porter green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| London v. Louisiana Department of Corrections neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Bolden green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. T.T. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State ex rel. T.W. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Bolden green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Caffrey neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In re the Succession of Horn neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Tornabene neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.