event error in Louisiana

2015Where prosecutorial error even of a degree sufficient to warrant a mistrial has occurred, “[t]he important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error.” United States v. Dinitz, supra, 424 U.S., at 609 , 96 S.Ct., at 1080 .

2015Where prosecutorial error even of a degree sufficient to warrant a mistrial has occurred, “[t]he important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error.” United States v. Dinitz, supra, 424 U.S., at 609 , 96 S.Ct., at 1080 .

2006Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to “goad” the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion. 456 U.S. at 675-76 , 102 S.Ct. at 2089 .

2006Only where the governmental conduct in question is intended to “goad” the defendant into moving for a mistrial may a defendant raise the bar of double jeopardy to a second trial after having succeeded in aborting the first on his own motion. 456 U.S. at 675-76 , 102 S.Ct. at 2089 .

2020App. 4 Cir. 2013), 115 So.3d 578, 585-87 , the defendant argued that it was prejudicial when he was forced to use five of his peremptory challenges on jurors that should have been dismissed for cause.

2015Id.

2009Rules of the Civil Service Commission, Rule II, Section 4.17. *1162 The timeliness of Commission action was discussed in Bannister v. Dept. of Streets, 95-0404 (La.1/16/96), 666 So.2d 641 .

2006State v. Beebe, 127 La. at 496 , 53 So. at 731 .

2006State v. Beebe, 127 La. at 496 , 53 So. at 731 .

2001The drainage district further cites Anne Lind & Associates v. Orleans Private Industry Council, 98-0848, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/3/99), 729 So.2d 1067, 1070 , writ denied, 99-0623 (La.4/23/1999), 742 So.2d 887 , for the proposition that an award of monetary damages would violate the public policy behind the spirit of the Public Bid Law.

2001The drainage district further cites Anne Lind & Associates v. Orleans Private Industry Council, 98-0848, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/3/99), 729 So.2d 1067, 1070 , writ denied, 99-0623 (La.4/23/1999), 742 So.2d 887 , for the proposition that an award of monetary damages would violate the public policy behind the spirit of the Public Bid Law.

2001See LSA-R.S. 13:5111; Rivet v. State, Dep't of Transp. and Dev., 96-0145 (La.9/5/96), 680 So.2d 1154, 1160 .

1996State v. Smith, 322 So.2d 197 (La. 1975).

1995As the Second Circuit stated in United Gas Pipe Line v. Whitman, 390 So.2d 913 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1980): It is reasonable for a taxpayer who delinquently pays taxes under protest to be assessed attorney fees as a penalty in the event his challenge is found invalid.

1991However, in the interest of justice and efficacious judicial review, the district court overruled the objection and allowed the creditor to put on all of its evidence because the court was "interested in the record being made complete in the event it is in error herein." On appeal, the creditor, maintaining that it was a reasonably ascertainable creditor under the rulings of Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 , 108 S.Ct. 1340 , 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) and Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 , 77 *440 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), asserted tha

1991However, in the interest of justice and efficacious judicial review, the district court overruled the objection and allowed the creditor to put on all of its evidence because the court was "interested in the record being made complete in the event it is in error herein." On appeal, the creditor, maintaining that it was a reasonably ascertainable creditor under the rulings of Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 , 108 S.Ct. 1340 , 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) and Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 , 77 *440 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), asserted tha

1991However, in the interest of justice and efficacious judicial review, the district court overruled the objection and allowed the creditor to put on all of its evidence because the court was "interested in the record being made complete in the event it is in error herein." On appeal, the creditor, maintaining that it was a reasonably ascertainable creditor under the rulings of Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 , 108 S.Ct. 1340 , 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) and Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 , 77 *440 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), asserted tha

1991However, in the interest of justice and efficacious judicial review, the district court overruled the objection and allowed the creditor to put on all of its evidence because the court was "interested in the record being made complete in the event it is in error herein." On appeal, the creditor, maintaining that it was a reasonably ascertainable creditor under the rulings of Tulsa Professional Collection Services, Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 , 108 S.Ct. 1340 , 99 L.Ed.2d 565 (1988) and Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 , 103 S.Ct. 2706 , 77 *440 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983), asserted tha

1967In Solomon v. Diefenthal, 46 La.Ann. 897 , 15 So. 183 (1894), it was held that where a party who sells his business and the good will thereof contracts that he will not engage in the same business in the same place for five years, and stipulates that in the event of the violation of his engagement, in whole or in part, the damages inflicted upon the purchaser in consequence thereof are liquidated and fixed at five thousand dollars, which he agrees to pay as a penalty for such violation, and consents that the purchaser may restrain him by injunction, if necessary, from any attempt to violate sa

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963Arts. 2286 and 3556, which concern the principle of res judicata, the court, in Norah v. Crawford, 218 La. 433 , 49 So.2d 751, 754 , stated: " In the interpretation of these codal provisions the following jurisprudence has evolved and become firmly established: `It matters not under what form, whether by petition, exception, rule or intervention, the question be presented, whenever the same question recurs between the same parties, even under a different form or procedure, the exception of res judicata estops.' City Bank of New Orleans v. Walden, 1 La.Ann. 46, 47 ; Consolidated Association of

1963It is elementary that in the event of error in the judgment of a court of record the remedy is by appeal as provided for by law." ( 132 So.2d 106, 110 .) Referring to LSA-C.C.