bill exception in Louisiana

136 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1855–2017 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.

Followed or applied (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Glausongreen la · 1928 · cited in 4 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1929–1949 2 sentences 1949See, also, State v. Glauson, 165 La. 270 , 115 So. 484 . 1949See, also, State v. Glauson, 165 La. 270 , 115 So. 484 .	2	4
State v. Whitegreen la · 1945 · cited in 3 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1968–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Skelton, 340 So.2d 256, 259 (La. 1976) (“‘[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.’”) (quoting State v. Plummer, 281 So.2d 716 (La. 1973)); State v. White, 21 So.2d 877, 878 (1945) (“The granting of a new trial on [grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence] does not present any question of law.”); see also State v. Mallette, 15-0039, p. 2 (La. 4/2/15), 164 So.3d 814 , 815 (Crichton 2017See State v. Skelton, 340 So.2d 256, 259 (La. 1976) (“‘[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.’”) (quoting State v. Plummer, 281 So.2d 716 (La. 1973)); State v. White, 21 So.2d 877, 878 (1945) (“The granting of a new trial on [grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence] does not present any question of law.”); see also State v. Mallette, 15-0039, p. 2 (La. 4/2/15), 164 So.3d 814 , 815 (Crichton	2	3
State v. Skeltongreen la · 1976 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Skelton, 340 So.2d 256, 259 (La. 1976) (“‘[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.’”) (quoting State v. Plummer, 281 So.2d 716 (La. 1973)); State v. White, 21 So.2d 877, 878 (1945) (“The granting of a new trial on [grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence] does not present any question of law.”); see also State v. Mallette, 15-0039, p. 2 (La. 4/2/15), 164 So.3d 814 , 815 (Crichton 2017See State v. Skelton, 340 So.2d 256, 259 (La. 1976) (“‘[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.’”) (quoting State v. Plummer, 281 So.2d 716 (La. 1973)); State v. White, 21 So.2d 877, 878 (1945) (“The granting of a new trial on [grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence] does not present any question of law.”); see also State v. Mallette, 15-0039, p. 2 (La. 4/2/15), 164 So.3d 814 , 815 (Crichton	2	2
State v. Plummergreen la · 1973 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Skelton, 340 So.2d 256, 259 (La. 1976) (“‘[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.’”) (quoting State v. Plummer, 281 So.2d 716 (La. 1973)); State v. White, 21 So.2d 877, 878 (1945) (“The granting of a new trial on [grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence] does not present any question of law.”); see also State v. Mallette, 15-0039, p. 2 (La. 4/2/15), 164 So.3d 814 , 815 (Crichton 2017See State v. Skelton, 340 So.2d 256, 259 (La. 1976) (“‘[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.’”) (quoting State v. Plummer, 281 So.2d 716 (La. 1973)); State v. White, 21 So.2d 877, 878 (1945) (“The granting of a new trial on [grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence] does not present any question of law.”); see also State v. Mallette, 15-0039, p. 2 (La. 4/2/15), 164 So.3d 814 , 815 (Crichton	2	2
Guidry v. Bernardgreen la · 2015 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Skelton, 340 So.2d 256, 259 (La. 1976) (“‘[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.’”) (quoting State v. Plummer, 281 So.2d 716 (La. 1973)); State v. White, 21 So.2d 877, 878 (1945) (“The granting of a new trial on [grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence] does not present any question of law.”); see also State v. Mallette, 15-0039, p. 2 (La. 4/2/15), 164 So.3d 814 , 815 (Crichton 2017See State v. Skelton, 340 So.2d 256, 259 (La. 1976) (“‘[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exception reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.’”) (quoting State v. Plummer, 281 So.2d 716 (La. 1973)); State v. White, 21 So.2d 877, 878 (1945) (“The granting of a new trial on [grounds that the verdict is contrary to the law and evidence] does not present any question of law.”); see also State v. Mallette, 15-0039, p. 2 (La. 4/2/15), 164 So.3d 814 , 815 (Crichton	2	2
State v. Poolegreen la · 1924 · cited in 6 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1924–1946 2 sentences 1941In State v. Poole, 156 La. 434 , 100 So. 613 , this court held that a bill of exception of this kind, which does not show that the trial judge was asked for a.ruling and that an exception was taken to such ruling when made, presents nothing for the consideration of an appellate court. 1941In State v. Poole, 156 La. 434 , 100 So. 613 , this court held that a bill of exception of this kind, which does not show that the trial judge was asked for a.ruling and that an exception was taken to such ruling when made, presents nothing for the consideration of an appellate court.	1	6
State v. Gennagreen la · 1927 · cited in 3 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1929–1941 2 sentences 1929“A bill of exception which does not show that the trial judge was asked for a ruling and an exception taken to such ruling when made presents nothing for the consideration of an appellate court.” State v. Genna, 163 La. 701, 716 , 112 So. 655, 660 . 1929“A bill of exception which does not show that the trial judge was asked for a ruling and an exception taken to such ruling when made presents nothing for the consideration of an appellate court.” State v. Genna, 163 La. 701, 716 , 112 So. 655, 660 .	1	3
State v. Carrgreen la · 1904 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1914–1915	1	2
State v. Simpsongreen lactapp · 1985 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007	1	1
State v. Joynergreen la · 1955 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1974–1974	1	1
State v. Stomagreen la · 1941 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1971–1971	1	1
State v. Huntergreen la · 1967 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 1970–1970	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (68)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Honeycutt green la · 1950 2 sentences 1959“We said in State v. Honeycutt, 218 La. 362 , 49 So.2d 610 , that it is well settled in the jurisprudence of this court that in a criminal case, even though the testimony may be taken, transcribed, and placed in the transcript, it cannot be considered by us and has no proper place in the record unless it is annexed to, and made a part of, a bill of exception timely perfected.” The convictions and sentences of the appellants are reversed and set aside, and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial. 1 . 1959“We said in State v. Honeycutt, 218 La. 362 , 49 So.2d 610 , that it is well settled in the jurisprudence of this court that in a criminal case, even though the testimony may be taken, transcribed, and placed in the transcript, it cannot be considered by us and has no proper place in the record unless it is annexed to, and made a part of, a bill of exception timely perfected.” The convictions and sentences of the appellants are reversed and set aside, and the case is remanded to the district court for a new trial. 1 .	9	1953–1970
State v. Lebleu green la · 1943 2 sentences 1944The attorneys for the defendants then filed an opposition to the State’s motion for an appeal and, on May 31, 1943, the judge, after hearing argument, dismissed the motion for an appeal and, at the same time, withdrew his signature from the bill of exception which the State had reserved in conformity with the ruling of this Court in the case of State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 . 1944The attorneys for the defendants then filed an opposition to the State’s motion for an appeal and, on May 31, 1943, the judge, after hearing argument, dismissed the motion for an appeal and, at the same time, withdrew his signature from the bill of exception which the State had reserved in conformity with the ruling of this Court in the case of State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 .	7	1944–1967
State v. Antoine green la · 1938 2 sentences 1949In connection with this bill, the State cites the case of State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619, 622 , 180 So. 465, 466 , and quotes the following very pertinent language therefrom : “The next alleged error complained of is incorporated in bill of exception No. 2, which was reserved to the overruling of defendant’s objection to the following remark of the assistant district attorney: ‘How has the defense combatted or met the case of the State?’ The basis of this bill of exception was that the statement was an indirect comment ón the fact that the defendant did not take the stand. “ ‘Unless the distric 1949In connection with this bill, the State cites the case of State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619, 622 , 180 So. 465, 466 , and quotes the following very pertinent language therefrom : “The next alleged error complained of is incorporated in bill of exception No. 2, which was reserved to the overruling of defendant’s objection to the following remark of the assistant district attorney: ‘How has the defense combatted or met the case of the State?’ The basis of this bill of exception was that the statement was an indirect comment ón the fact that the defendant did not take the stand. “ ‘Unless the distric	6	1948–1973
State v. Green neutral la · 1884 2 sentences 1973State v. Dorsey, 262 La. 785 , 264 So.2d 644 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keifer, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ." We conclude that the bills of exceptions lack merit. 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 .	6	1948–1973
State v. Carroll neutral la · 1926 2 sentences 1973State v. Dorsey, 262 La. 785 , 264 So.2d 644 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keifer, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ." We conclude that the bills of exceptions lack merit. 1948In disposing of these two bills, we stated [ 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 783 ]: “ * * * We are not advised what objection defendant had to the proffered testimony, and we are not required to explore the wide field of evidence to discover some possible ground on which the evidence might or should have been excluded. * * ” In the recent case of State v. Antoine, supra, this rule is expressed as follows [ 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 466 ] : “During the trial of his case, defendant reserved a bill of exception to the ruling of the court overruling his objection to certain questions asked a defense witness und	5	1948–1973
State v. Keife neutral la · 1927 2 sentences 1973State v. Dorsey, 262 La. 785 , 264 So.2d 644 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keifer, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ." We conclude that the bills of exceptions lack merit. 1973State v. Dorsey, 262 La. 785 , 264 So.2d 644 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keifer, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ." We conclude that the bills of exceptions lack merit.	5	1948–1973
State v. Labat green la · 1954 2 sentences 1964Counsel does not state in the instant bill his reasons for the request. “ * * * it is well settled that a bill of exception must state the grounds of objection or point out specifically the errors complained of in order that an opportunity may be given the trial judge to correct them, and that, if it is not sufficiently specific, it will not avail tlie party raising it. * * * ” State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 . 1964Counsel does not state in the instant bill his reasons for the request. “ * * * it is well settled that a bill of exception must state the grounds of objection or point out specifically the errors complained of in order that an opportunity may be given the trial judge to correct them, and that, if it is not sufficiently specific, it will not avail tlie party raising it. * * * ” State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 .	4	1964–1973
Miranda v. Arizona green scotus · 1966 2 sentences 1968However, his counsel now concedes the officer informed him of his rights, but claims- “it is not sufficient that a defendant be merely appraised of his rights, it must also indicate that the 1079 defendant understands what is • being ' explained to him,” and suggests “it is entirely doubtful” • that he fully -understood what was being explained to him. .Counsel for the accused in reserving a bill of exception to the judge’s ruling made the entire note of evidence a part of the bill, a perusal of which will unmistakably support the judge’s ruling in that it discloses promptly after the defenda 1968However, his counsel now concedes the officer informed him of his rights, but claims- “it is not sufficient that a defendant be merely appraised of his rights, it must also indicate that the 1079 defendant understands what is • being ' explained to him,” and suggests “it is entirely doubtful” • that he fully -understood what was being explained to him. .Counsel for the accused in reserving a bill of exception to the judge’s ruling made the entire note of evidence a part of the bill, a perusal of which will unmistakably support the judge’s ruling in that it discloses promptly after the defenda	3	1967–1968
State v. Stewart neutral la · 1937 2 sentences 1967R.S. 15:498 et seq.; State v. Honeycutt, 218 La. 362 , 49 So.2d 610 , and authorities cited; State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , and authorities cited; State v. Stewart, 188 La. 546 , 177 So. 662 ; State v. Bueche, 243 La. 160 , 142 So.2d 381 . 1967R.S. 15:498 et seq.; State v. Honeycutt, 218 La. 362 , 49 So.2d 610 , and authorities cited; State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , and authorities cited; State v. Stewart, 188 La. 546 , 177 So. 662 ; State v. Bueche, 243 La. 160 , 142 So.2d 381 .	3	1950–1967
State v. White neutral ohioctapp · 1885 2 sentences 1953In that case the following authorities were cited in support of this rule: State v. White, 37 La.Ann. 172 ; State v. Richard, 42 La. 1952State v. White, 37 La.Ann. 172 ; State v. Richard, 42 La.Ann. 83 , 6 So. 897 ; State v. James, 106 La. 462 , 31 So. 44 ; State v. Simmons, 118 La. 22 , 42 So. 582 ; State v. Aenspacker, 130 La. 717 , 58 So. 520 ; State v. Warthen, 153 La. 260 , 95 So. 711 ; State v. Crumble, 158 La. 495 , 104 So. 303 ; State v. Stewart, 188 La. 546 , 177 So. 662 ; State v. Lecompte, 214 La. 117 , 36 So.2d 695 .” The trial judge in his per curiam to this bill relates the following in regard to the proof on this point: " * * * The evidence showed that on October 7, 1950, Mrs. A. Taylor, Jr. purchased a Wizard ba	3	1950–1953
State v. Simmons neutral la · 1906 2 sentences 1952State v. White, 37 La.Ann. 172 ; State v. Richard, 42 La.Ann. 83 , 6 So. 897 ; State v. James, 106 La. 462 , 31 So. 44 ; State v. Simmons, 118 La. 22 , 42 So. 582 ; State v. Aenspacker, 130 La. 717 , 58 So. 520 ; State v. Warthen, 153 La. 260 , 95 So. 711 ; State v. Crumble, 158 La. 495 , 104 So. 303 ; State v. Stewart, 188 La. 546 , 177 So. 662 ; State v. Lecompte, 214 La. 117 , 36 So.2d 695 .” The trial judge in his per curiam to this bill relates the following in regard to the proof on this point: " * * * The evidence showed that on October 7, 1950, Mrs. A. Taylor, Jr. purchased a Wizard ba 1952State v. White, 37 La.Ann. 172 ; State v. Richard, 42 La.Ann. 83 , 6 So. 897 ; State v. James, 106 La. 462 , 31 So. 44 ; State v. Simmons, 118 La. 22 , 42 So. 582 ; State v. Aenspacker, 130 La. 717 , 58 So. 520 ; State v. Warthen, 153 La. 260 , 95 So. 711 ; State v. Crumble, 158 La. 495 , 104 So. 303 ; State v. Stewart, 188 La. 546 , 177 So. 662 ; State v. Lecompte, 214 La. 117 , 36 So.2d 695 .” The trial judge in his per curiam to this bill relates the following in regard to the proof on this point: " * * * The evidence showed that on October 7, 1950, Mrs. A. Taylor, Jr. purchased a Wizard ba	3	1915–1952
State v. Bueche green la · 1962 2 sentences 1971State v. Latigue, 251 La. 193 , 203 So.2d 546 ; State v. Bueche, 243 La. 160 , 142 So.2d. 381; State v. Forsythe, 243 La. 460 , 144 So.2d 536 In State v. Forsythe, supra, we said: “A defendant wishing to plead that there is no evidence of an essential element of the crime charged can obtain a review of this contention only by setting it up in a motion for a new trial and attaching to the motion all the testimony and evidence adduced during the trial; for unless all of the evidence is properly before us by way of a bill of exception we cannot possibly determine whether there is no evidence of a 1967R.S. 15:498 et seq.; State v. Honeycutt, 218 La. 362 , 49 So.2d 610 , and authorities cited; State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , and authorities cited; State v. Stewart, 188 La. 546 , 177 So. 662 ; State v. Bueche, 243 La. 160 , 142 So.2d 381 .	2	1967–1971
State v. Young green la · 1966 2 sentences 1971In State v. Young, 249 La. 1053 , 193 So.2d 243 , this Court said: “It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this court that the bill of exception must show not only the objection but also the ground of objection, so that the trial judge may be afforded an opportunity to rule intelligently on the admissibility of the offering or testimony objected to and an opportunity to correct any error that may have been committed. 1971In State v. Young, 249 La. 1053 , 193 So.2d 243 , this Court said: “It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this court that the bill of exception must show not only the objection but also the ground of objection, so that the trial judge may be afforded an opportunity to rule intelligently on the admissibility of the offering or testimony objected to and an opportunity to correct any error that may have been committed.	2	1971–1971
State v. Young green la · 1966 2 sentences 1971In State v. Young, 249 La. 1053 , 193 So.2d 243 , this Court said: “It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this court that the bill of exception must show not only the objection but also the ground of objection, so that the trial judge may be afforded an opportunity to rule intelligently on the admissibility of the offering or testimony objected to and an opportunity to correct any error that may have been committed. 1971In State v. Young, 249 La. 1053 , 193 So.2d 243 , this Court said: “It is well settled in the jurisprudence of this court that the bill of exception must show not only the objection but also the ground of objection, so that the trial judge may be afforded an opportunity to rule intelligently on the admissibility of the offering or testimony objected to and an opportunity to correct any error that may have been committed.	2	1971–1971
Escobedo v. Illinois green scotus · 1964 2 sentences 1968The objection was overruled and this bill of exception was reserved.” In this court, in connection with their argument that the statement was improperly obtained and introduced, defense counsel rely on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L. 1968The objection was overruled and this bill of exception was reserved.” In this court, in connection with their argument that the statement was improperly obtained and introduced, defense counsel rely on the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , 84 S.Ct. 1758 , 12 L.	2	1966–1968
State v. Pearson green la · 1953 2 sentences 1967Former R.S. 15 :391 provides : “Every objection * * * to a refusal to charge as requested * * * shall be by means of a bill of exceptions reserved before the jury shall have retired to deliberate upon their verdict, and the bill of exceptions shall be accompanied by such a statement of facts as shall show the error * * * in the refusal to charge as requested.” In State v. Pearson, 224 La. 393 , 69 So.2d 512 , it was pointed out that the purpose of this law is to require counsel to call the trial judge’s attention to the error complained of so as to afford the judge an opportunity to correct it 1967Former R.S. 15 :391 provides : “Every objection * * * to a refusal to charge as requested * * * shall be by means of a bill of exceptions reserved before the jury shall have retired to deliberate upon their verdict, and the bill of exceptions shall be accompanied by such a statement of facts as shall show the error * * * in the refusal to charge as requested.” In State v. Pearson, 224 La. 393 , 69 So.2d 512 , it was pointed out that the purpose of this law is to require counsel to call the trial judge’s attention to the error complained of so as to afford the judge an opportunity to correct it	2	1955–1967
State v. Asher. neutral la · 1948 2 sentences 1967State v. Asher, 213 La. 131 , 34 So.2d 399 , and authorities cited. 1967State v. Asher, 213 La. 131 , 34 So.2d 399 , and authorities cited.	2	1949–1967
State v. Young neutral la · 1922 2 sentences 1967LSA-R.S. 15 :499 provides: “On the trial of all criminal cases, whenever a bill of exceptions shall be reserved to the ruling on any obj ection, the court shall at the time and without delay order the clerk or the stenographer to take down the facts upon which the objection and the ruling are based, together with the objection, the ruling and the reasons of the ruling, which statement, objection, ruling and reasons, so taken down, shall be preserved among the records of the trial, and shall, when signed, by the judge, constitute the bill of exceptions; provided that whenever a bill has been re 1967LSA-R.S. 15 :499 provides: “On the trial of all criminal cases, whenever a bill of exceptions shall be reserved to the ruling on any obj ection, the court shall at the time and without delay order the clerk or the stenographer to take down the facts upon which the objection and the ruling are based, together with the objection, the ruling and the reasons of the ruling, which statement, objection, ruling and reasons, so taken down, shall be preserved among the records of the trial, and shall, when signed, by the judge, constitute the bill of exceptions; provided that whenever a bill has been re	2	1950–1967
State v. Davis neutral la · 1949 2 sentences 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 . 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 .	2	1966–1966
State v. Ricks green la · 1930 2 sentences 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 . 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 .	2	1966–1966
State v. Lanning neutral la · 1913 2 sentences 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 . 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 .	2	1966–1966
Lewis v. City of Pineville green la · 1964 2 sentences 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 . 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 .	2	1966–1966
State v. Watson green la · 1964 2 sentences 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 . 1966State v. Green, 36 La.Ann. 185 ; State v. Lanning, 134 La. 209 , 63 So. 878 ; State v. Carroll, 160 La. 199 , 106 So. 782 ; State v. Keife, 165 La. 47 , 115 So. 363 ; State v. Ricks, 170 La. 507 , 128 So. 293 ; State v. Antoine, 189 La. 619 , 180 So. 465 ; State v. Davis, 214 La. 831 , 39 So.2d 76 ; State v. Labat, 226 La. 201 , 75 So.2d 333 ; State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 .	2	1966–1966
State v. Bellam green la · 1954	2	1965–1965
State v. Pitcher green la · 1958	2	1965–1965
State v. Lecompte neutral la · 1947	2	1950–1952
State v. Crumble neutral la · 1925	2	1950–1952
State v. James green la · 1901	2	1950–1952
Maisonneuve v. Delfares green la · 1912	2	1950–1952
State v. Aenspacker neutral la · 1912	2	1950–1952
State v. Warthen neutral la · 1923	2	1950–1952
State v. Le Blanc neutral la · 1930	2	1950–1950
State v. Lewis green la · 1924	2	1938–1949
State v. Proctor neutral la · 1928	2	1939–1945
State v. Palmer green la · 1968	1	1983–1983
State v. Singley green la · 1940	1	1980–1980
State v. Drew neutral · 1942	1	1980–1980
State v. McLean green la · 1950	1	1980–1980
State v. Douglas green la · 1973	1	1980–1980
State v. Hochenedel neutral la · 1968	1	1980–1980

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15 (14) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (13) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 9 (7) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 11 (6) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:500 (6) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 3 (5) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:962 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 995 (1879–2026) LA 136 (1855–2017) CA 51 (1945–2026) VA 31 (1852–2004) AL 26 (1868–2006) MD 20 (1877–2011) IL 20 (1868–2004) WV 18 (1887–1970) GA 15 (1885–1966) PA 13 (1836–2022) IN 10 (1892–1981) FL 9 (1907–2021) NY 9 (1847–2005) MA 7 (1879–1968) MO 6 (1897–1913) OK 6 (1901–2015) MI 6 (1870–2012) NJ 6 (1908–1998) OH 6 (1941–2026) NM 4 (1905–2021) CT 4 (1901–2023) WI 4 (1981–2006) ME 4 (1903–1968) VT 4 (1884–1941) WY 4 (1923–1989) TN 4 (1901–2022) OR 3 (1896–2012) KY 3 (1925–1989) WA 3 (1917–2016) UT 3 (1905–1944) MS 3 (1927–2010) NE 3 (1897–1957) AR 3 (1912–2011) IA 3 (1866–2021) KS 2 (1980–1981) RI 2 (1914–1993) CO 2 (1949–1996) AZ 2 (1951–2025) AK 2 (1991–1993) NC 2 (1899–1899)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check