18 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1961–2024 1 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. Snydergreen1 sentence2024Thus, the State argues, Defendant’s pleading was insufficient and a hearing should never have been held to determine the issue. 2 Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 703(E)(1) provides in pertinent part that an “evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress shall be held only when the defendant alleges facts that would require the granting of relief.” We have noted that “[v]ague and general legal conclusions, urged in form motions, are inadequate to require the holding of a hearing.” State v. Snyder, 496 So.2d 1117, 1119 (La. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen1 sentence1970See State v. King and Williams, 255 La. 501 , 231 So.2d 402 , and State v. Fitzsimmons, 255 La. 787 , 232 So.2d 515 . | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Anderson v. Hendersongreen1 sentence1970See State v. King and Williams, 255 La. 501 , 231 So.2d 402 , and State v. Fitzsimmons, 255 La. 787 , 232 So.2d 515 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fitzsimmonsgreen2 sentences1970See State v. King and Williams, 255 La. 501 , 231 So.2d 402 , and State v. Fitzsimmons, 255 La. 787 , 232 So.2d 515 . 1970See State v. King and Williams, 255 La. 501 , 231 So.2d 402 , and State v. Fitzsimmons, 255 La. 787 , 232 So.2d 515 . | 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. Jenkins
neutral
2 sentences2013In State v. Jenkins, 595 So.2d 780 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1992), the Fifth Circuit found a delay of nearly two years between the filing of the multiple bill and the holding of the hearing was not unreasonable because the defendant had been notified immediately of the intended filing of the multiple bill and was still incarcerated at the time of the hearing. 2001In State v. Jenkins, 595 So.2d 780 (La.App. 5 Cir.1992), the Fifth Circuit found a delay of nearly two years between the filing of the multiple bill and the holding of the hearing was not unreasonable because the defendant had been notified immediately of the intended filing of the multiple bill and was still incarcerated at the time of the hearing. | 4 | 1998–2013 |
State v. White
neutral
2 sentences2019The legislature in effect has said that a failure to comply with article 873 in the absence of an express waiver by the defendant affects substantial rights." State v. White , 483 So.2d 1005 (La.1986), Dennis, J., dissenting in part. 2019The legislature in effect has said that a failure to comply with article 873 in the absence of an express waiver by the defendant affects substantial rights." State v. White , 483 So.2d 1005 (La.1986), Dennis, J., dissenting in part. | 3 | 1990–2019 |
State v. Edens
green
2 sentences2018State v. Giordano , 284 So.2d 880 (La. 1973) ; State v. Edens , 465 So.2d 954 (La. 1985State v. Giordano, 284 So.2d 880 (La.1973); State v. Richey, 258 La. 1094 , 249 So.2d 143 (1971); State v. Edens, 465 So.2d 954 (La.App.2d Cir.1985). | 2 | 1985–2018 |
State v. Giordano
neutral
2 sentences2018State v. Giordano , 284 So.2d 880 (La. 1973) ; State v. Edens , 465 So.2d 954 (La. 1985State v. Giordano, 284 So.2d 880 (La.1973); State v. Richey, 258 La. 1094 , 249 So.2d 143 (1971); State v. Edens, 465 So.2d 954 (La.App.2d Cir.1985). | 2 | 1985–2018 |
Coleman v. Deno
green
2 sentences2016I disagree with the majority’s application of the factors set forth by this court in Coleman v. Denno, 01-1517 (La. 1/25/02), 813 So.2d 303 . 2016I disagree with the majority’s application of the factors set forth by this court in Coleman v. Deno, 01-1517 (La. 1/25/02), 813 So.2d 303 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Toney
green
1 sentence2016The State relies in part on State v. Toney, 2002-0992 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 1083 , wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court distinguished both McQueen and Broussard , finding that a seventeen-month delay between the filing of the multiple bill of information, and: the hearing on the multiple bill was not an unreasonable delay where 1 there was. no evidence that the State engaged.-in dilatory tactics nor was the defendant surprised by the filing of the multiple bill: ■ Ifi the instant case, we cannot say that dilatory tactics of the district attorney caused the delay between the filing of the multi | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Richey
green
2 sentences1985State v. Giordano, 284 So.2d 880 (La.1973); State v. Richey, 258 La. 1094 , 249 So.2d 143 (1971); State v. Edens, 465 So.2d 954 (La.App.2d Cir.1985). 1985State v. Giordano, 284 So.2d 880 (La.1973); State v. Richey, 258 La. 1094 , 249 So.2d 143 (1971); State v. Edens, 465 So.2d 954 (La.App.2d Cir.1985). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
State v. Dunn
green
1 sentence1982Thus State v. Dunn, supra , is scant support for the holding that a waiver of rights form may be used in lieu of the contemporaneously recorded transcript of the colloquy between the trial judge and the defendant. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
LeBrane v. Lewis
green
1 sentence1981However, aside from isolated expressions in intermediate opinions, we find no modern authority to support the holding that the requirement be strictly construed in favor of the employer in tort cases." ( 292 So.2d at 218 , footnote 3) [3] For purposes of determining whether the summary judgment should be granted, we believe that the phrase "in the course and scope of employment" should be liberally construed in accordance with the expression found in LeBrane . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Berry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company
green
1 sentence1970The petition in this case is utterly barren of any allegation which could be construed as charging an act of malfeasance on the part of any of the defendants." The case of Adams v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, 107 So.2d 496 (La.App., 1st Cir. 1958writ denied), and our recent decision in Berry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 240 So.2d 243 (La.App., 2d Cir. 1970writ denied), are not in accord with defendants' contention. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Adams v. Fidelity and Casualty Co. of New York
green
1 sentence1970The petition in this case is utterly barren of any allegation which could be construed as charging an act of malfeasance on the part of any of the defendants." The case of Adams v. Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, 107 So.2d 496 (La.App., 1st Cir. 1958writ denied), and our recent decision in Berry v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 240 So.2d 243 (La.App., 2d Cir. 1970writ denied), are not in accord with defendants' contention. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Voisin v. Luke
green
1 sentence1966The judgment of the District Court was affirmed by decision reported in La.App., 151 So.2d 99 , this Court holding that the exception of no right of action and no cause of action filed by the defendants did not constitute a timely and proper objection to the request for admissions of fact in this possessory action where the exception amounted to an exception of want of possession, and that, therefore, the defendants were in the position of having no answers or objections of record when the exception of no right and no cause of action was not sustained Thereafter defendants applied to the Supre | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Vercher v. Cormie
neutral
1 sentence1966The judgment of the District Court was affirmed by decision reported in La.App., 151 So.2d 99 , this Court holding that the exception of no right of action and no cause of action filed by the defendants did not constitute a timely and proper objection to the request for admissions of fact in this possessory action where the exception amounted to an exception of want of possession, and that, therefore, the defendants were in the position of having no answers or objections of record when the exception of no right and no cause of action was not sustained Thereafter defendants applied to the Supre | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Ellis v. Johnson Lumber Co.
neutral
1 sentence1966The judgment of the District Court was affirmed by decision reported in La.App., 151 So.2d 99 , this Court holding that the exception of no right of action and no cause of action filed by the defendants did not constitute a timely and proper objection to the request for admissions of fact in this possessory action where the exception amounted to an exception of want of possession, and that, therefore, the defendants were in the position of having no answers or objections of record when the exception of no right and no cause of action was not sustained Thereafter defendants applied to the Supre | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Succession of Fox
green
1 sentence1961Succession of Fox, 2 Rob. 292 ; Succession of Henry, supra. The fundamental difference in the original opinion and the opinion on rehearing is the holding that there was error in the majority opinion originally when it was declared that the purported remunerative donation made by the decedent in her last will and testament “does not and cannot compensate for services to be rendered in fu-turo.” The recognition by this court that remunerative donations are to be so limited, it is argued, deprives the beneficiary legatee, under the questioned will, of that proof in the record which he contends t | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.