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.
21 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Telsee
green
2 sentences2011However, in complying with this article, the trial court “need not articulate every circumstance or read through a checklist of items.” State v. Anderson, 95-1688, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96), 677 So.2d 480, 483 . [[Image here]] Citing the supreme court in State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983), the fifth circuit, in State v. Lisotta, 98-648, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57, 58 , writ denied, 99-433 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183 , suggested that: The court should consider three factors in reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion: 1. the nature of the crime, 2. the nature and b 2010Citing the supreme court in State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983), the fifth circuit, in State v. Lisotta, 98-648, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57, 58 , writ denied, 99-483 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183 , suggested that: The court should consider three factors in reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion: 1. the nature of the crime, 2. the nature and background of the offender, and 13¾3. the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. | 15 | 1988–2011 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1999State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983); State v. Smith, 520 So.2d 1252 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988), writ denied, 528 So.2d 1320 . [4The defendant complains of his 10-year sentence imposed for violating LSA-R.S. 14:95.1. 1998State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983); State v. Smith, 520 So.2d 1252 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988), writ denied, 523 So.2d 1320 . | 9 | 1990–1999 |
State v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences1998State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983); State v. Smith, 520 So.2d 1252 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988), writ denied, 523 So.2d 1320 . 1998State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983); State v. Smith, 520 So.2d 1252 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988), writ denied, 523 So.2d 1320 . | 7 | 1993–1998 |
State v. Lisotta
green
2 sentences2011However, in complying with this article, the trial court “need not articulate every circumstance or read through a checklist of items.” State v. Anderson, 95-1688, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96), 677 So.2d 480, 483 . [[Image here]] Citing the supreme court in State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983), the fifth circuit, in State v. Lisotta, 98-648, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57, 58 , writ denied, 99-433 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183 , suggested that: The court should consider three factors in reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion: 1. the nature of the crime, 2. the nature and b 2010Citing the supreme court in State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983), the fifth circuit, in State v. Lisotta, 98-648, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57, 58 , writ denied, 99-483 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183 , suggested that: The court should consider three factors in reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion: 1. the nature of the crime, 2. the nature and background of the offender, and 13¾3. the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. | 5 | 2007–2011 |
State v. Lisotta
green
2 sentences2011However, in complying with this article, the trial court “need not articulate every circumstance or read through a checklist of items.” State v. Anderson, 95-1688, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96), 677 So.2d 480, 483 . [[Image here]] Citing the supreme court in State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983), the fifth circuit, in State v. Lisotta, 98-648, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57, 58 , writ denied, 99-433 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183 , suggested that: The court should consider three factors in reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion: 1. the nature of the crime, 2. the nature and b 2010Citing the supreme court in State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983), the fifth circuit, in State v. Lisotta, 98-648, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57, 58 , writ denied, 99-483 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183 , suggested that: The court should consider three factors in reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion: 1. the nature of the crime, 2. the nature and background of the offender, and 13¾3. the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. | 5 | 2007–2011 |
State v. Richmond
green
2 sentences2000State v. Richmond, 97-1225 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/25/98) , 708 So.2d 1272, 1275 . 1999State v. Richmond, 97-1225 (La.App. 5 Cir. 3/25/98) , 708 So.2d 1272 . | 5 | 1998–2000 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences1993State v. Davis, supra; State v. Lynch, supra. When reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion, the court should consider three factors: (1) the nature of the crime; (2) the nature and background of the offender, and (3) the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other* courts. 1993State v. Davis, supra; State v. Lynch, supra. When reviewing a judge's sentencing discretion, the court should consider three factors: (1) the nature of the crime; (2) the nature and background of the offender; and (3) the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. | 2 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Lynch
green
2 sentences1993State v. Davis, supra; State v. Lynch, supra. When reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion, the court should consider three factors: (1) the nature of the crime; (2) the nature and background of the offender, and (3) the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other* courts. 1993State v. Davis, supra; State v. Lynch, supra. When reviewing a judge's sentencing discretion, the court should consider three factors: (1) the nature of the crime; (2) the nature and background of the offender; and (3) the sentence imposed for similar crimes by the same court and other courts. | 2 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Fontenot
neutral
1 sentence2011State v. Fontenot, 09-1044, pp. 4-6 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/12/10), 38 So.3d 1122, 1125-26 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Anderson
green
1 sentence2011However, in complying with this article, the trial court “need not articulate every circumstance or read through a checklist of items.” State v. Anderson, 95-1688, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96), 677 So.2d 480, 483 . [[Image here]] Citing the supreme court in State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983), the fifth circuit, in State v. Lisotta, 98-648, p. 4 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/16/98), 726 So.2d 57, 58 , writ denied, 99-433 (La.6/25/99), 745 So.2d 1183 , suggested that: The court should consider three factors in reviewing a judge’s sentencing discretion: 1. the nature of the crime, 2. the nature and b | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Jack
green
1 sentence1988State v. Telsee, 425 So.2d 1251 (La.1983); State v. Jack, 448 So.2d 725 (La.App. 5th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.