109 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2025 2 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. Chopingreen2 sentences2012In reviewing the correctness of a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress a confession, “we are not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing(s) on this motion, but rather may consider all pertinent evidence adduced at trial.” State v. Brooks, 92-3331, Slip Op. P. 10 (La.1/17/95), 648 So.2d 366, 372 , citing State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979) (listing cases). 2003In reviewing the correctness of a trial judge's ruling on a motion to suppress a confession, "we are not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing(s) on this motion, but rather may consider all pertinent evidence adduced at trial." State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10 (La.1/17/95), 648 So.2d 366, 372 , citing State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979) ( listing cases ). | 4 | 17 |
State v. Burkhaltergreen2 sentences2004State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449 (La. 1983); State v. Higgins, 01-368, p. 5 (La. 2003In determining whether the ruling on a defendant's motion to suppress is correct, an appellate court is not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing on the motion to suppress, but may also consider pertinent evidence given at the trial. *696 State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La.1983). | 3 | 9 |
State v. Bealsgreen2 sentences1994State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449 (La.1983); State v. Beals, 410 So.2d 745 (La.1982). 1993State v. Beals, 410 So.2d 745, 747 (La.1982). | 2 | 10 |
State v. Sewardgreen2 sentences1998State v. Seward, 509 So.2d 413 (La.1987); State v. Scott, 573 So.2d 556 (La.App. 5th Cir.1991). 1991LSA-R.S. 15:451; State v. Seward, 509 So.2d 413 , 416 n. 8 (La.1987); State v. *1380 Fisher, 380 So.2d 1340 , 1343 n. 1 (La.1980); State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979); State v. Schmidt, 359 So.2d 133 , 134 n. 2 (La.1978). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Fishergreen2 sentences1991LSA-R.S. 15:451; State v. Seward, 509 So.2d 413 , 416 n. 8 (La.1987); State v. *1380 Fisher, 380 So.2d 1340 , 1343 n. 1 (La.1980); State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979); State v. Schmidt, 359 So.2d 133 , 134 n. 2 (La.1978). 1982State v. Fisher, 380 So.2d 1340 (La. 1980); State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 (La. 1979); State v. Schmidt, 359 So.2d 133 (La. 1978); State v. Stewart, 357 So.2d 1111 (La.1978); State v. Shivers, 346 So.2d 657 (La.1977); State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109 , 245 So.2d 327 (1971); State v. Andrus, 250 La. 765 , 199 So.2d 867 (1967). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Brooksgreen2 sentences1988State v. Seward, 509 So.2d 413 (La.1987); State v. Brooks, 505 So.2d 714 (La.1987). 1987Cf. State v. Brooks, 505 So.2d 714, 721-22 (La. 1987); State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 (La. 1979); State v. Schmidt, 359 So.2d 133 (La. 1978). [9] Dr. Pike was called on behalf of the state in the Johnson-Seward hearing; he was called by the defense at the second hearing on the Seward motion. | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Constantinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beasley v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brifis v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Smalleygreen | 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. Washington
neutral
2 sentences2014State v. Washington, 00-1542, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01), 782 So.2d 639, 645 , writ denied, 01-940 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 859 . 2013State v. Washington, 00-1542 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01) , 782 So.2d 639, 645 , writ denied, 01-0940 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 859 . | 9 | 2001–2014 |
State v. Washington
green
2 sentences2014State v. Washington, 00-1542, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01), 782 So.2d 639, 645 , writ denied, 01-940 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 859 . 2013State v. Washington, 00-1542 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/14/01) , 782 So.2d 639, 645 , writ denied, 01-0940 (La.2/8/02), 807 So.2d 859 . | 8 | 2004–2014 |
State v. Higgins
neutral
2 sentences2008State v. Higgins, 01-368, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01), 800 So.2d 918, 921 . 2008State v. Higgins, 01-368, p. 5 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01), 800 So.2d 918, 921 . | 7 | 2003–2008 |
Heimermann v. Kohler
neutral
2 sentences2007State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038 , 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003). 2006State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038 , 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003). | 5 | 2003–2007 |
Nelms v. Cockrell, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
neutral
2 sentences2007State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038 , 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003). 2006State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038 , 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003). | 5 | 2003–2007 |
State v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2007State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038 , 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003). 2006State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038 , 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003). | 5 | 2003–2007 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2002State v. Bell, 97-1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/98) , 709 So.2d 921, 923 , writ denied, 98-0792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 . *800 In State v. Harris, 00-1930 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/11/01) , 786 So.2d 798 , this Court set forth the law regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause: The Fourth Amendment and Article I § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2001State v. Bell, 97-1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/98) , 709 So.2d 921 , writ denied, 98-0792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 . | 5 | 2000–2002 |
State v. Brooks
green
2 sentences2012In reviewing the correctness of a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to suppress a confession, “we are not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing(s) on this motion, but rather may consider all pertinent evidence adduced at trial.” State v. Brooks, 92-3331, Slip Op. P. 10 (La.1/17/95), 648 So.2d 366, 372 , citing State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979) (listing cases). 2003In reviewing the correctness of a trial judge's ruling on a motion to suppress a confession, "we are not limited to the evidence adduced at the hearing(s) on this motion, but rather may consider all pertinent evidence adduced at trial." State v. Brooks, 92-3331, p. 10 (La.1/17/95), 648 So.2d 366, 372 , citing State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979) ( listing cases ). | 4 | 1995–2012 |
Powers v. Tennessee
green
2 sentences2007State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038 , 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003). 2006State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1038 , 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003). | 4 | 2004–2007 |
State v. Roche
green
2 sentences2008State v. Roche, 05-237, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/06), 928 So.2d 761, 765 , writ denied, 06-1566 (La.1/8/07), 948 So.2d 120 . 2008State v. Roche, 05-237, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/06), 928 So.2d 761, 765 , writ denied, 06-1566 (La.1/8/07), 948 So.2d 120 . | 3 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Roche
green
2 sentences2008State v. Roche, 05-237, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/06), 928 So.2d 761, 765 , writ denied, 06-1566 (La.1/8/07), 948 So.2d 120 . 2008State v. Roche, 05-237, pp. 7-8 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/25/06), 928 So.2d 761, 765 , writ denied, 06-1566 (La.1/8/07), 948 So.2d 120 . | 3 | 2007–2008 |
State v. Byes
green
2 sentences2003State v. Higgins, 01-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01) , 800 So.2d 918, 921 , writ denied, 01-3267 (La. 11/1/01), 828 So.2d 565 , cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 123 S.Ct. 2082 , 155 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2003), citing State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La.1983) and *819 State v. Byes, 94-611 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/94) , 648 So.2d 1073, 1074 . 2001State v. Burkhalter, 428 So.2d 449, 455 (La.1983); State v. Byes, 94-611 (La.App. 5 Cir. 12/28/94) , 648 So.2d 1073, 1074 . | 3 | 1998–2003 |
State v. Bell
green
2 sentences2002State v. Bell, 97-1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/98) , 709 So.2d 921, 923 , writ denied, 98-0792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 . *800 In State v. Harris, 00-1930 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/11/01) , 786 So.2d 798 , this Court set forth the law regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause: The Fourth Amendment and Article I § 5 of the Louisiana Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. 2001State v. Bell, 97-1134 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2/25/98) , 709 So.2d 921 , writ denied, 98-0792 (La.9/16/98), 721 So.2d 477 . | 3 | 2000–2002 |
State v. Schmidt
green
2 sentences1991LSA-R.S. 15:451; State v. Seward, 509 So.2d 413 , 416 n. 8 (La.1987); State v. *1380 Fisher, 380 So.2d 1340 , 1343 n. 1 (La.1980); State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 , 1223 n. 2 (La.1979); State v. Schmidt, 359 So.2d 133 , 134 n. 2 (La.1978). 1987Cf. State v. Brooks, 505 So.2d 714, 721-22 (La. 1987); State v. Chopin, 372 So.2d 1222 (La. 1979); State v. Schmidt, 359 So.2d 133 (La. 1978). [9] Dr. Pike was called on behalf of the state in the Johnson-Seward hearing; he was called by the defense at the second hearing on the Seward motion. | 3 | 1982–1991 |
State v. Leger
green
2 sentences2016State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 122 . 2015State v. Leger, 05-0011 (La.7/10/06), 936 So.2d 108, 122 . | 2 | 2015–2016 |
State v. Raines
green
2 sentences2008State v. Raines , 00-1941 at p. 5, 788 So.2d at 639-40 . 2006State v. Raines, 788 So.2d at 639-640 . | 2 | 2006–2008 |
State v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2007Thomas, 904 So.2d at 902 . 2006State v. Thomas, 04-1341 (La.App.5/31/05), 904 So.2d 896, 902 , writ denied, 05-2002 (La.2/17/06), 924 So.2d 1013 . [4] The victim described the perpetrator's shirt to the 911 operator as a blue checkered shirt. | 2 | 2006–2007 |
State v. Green
green
2 sentences2003State v. Green, 94-0887, pp. 10-11 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 272, 280-81 , writ denied, 00-3351 (La.8/24/01), 795 So.2d 339 . 1998State v. Green, 94-0887, p. 11 (La.5/22/95); 655 So.2d 272, 280 . | 2 | 1998–2003 |
McDougall v. North Carolina
green
2 sentences1988State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118 (La.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 865 , 104 S.Ct. 202 , 78 L.Ed.2d 176 , rehearing denied, 464 U.S. 1004 , 104 S.Ct. 515 , 78 L.Ed.2d 702 (1983). 1987State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118 (La.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 865 , 104 S.Ct. 202 , 78 L.Ed.2d 176 (1983). | 2 | 1987–1988 |
State v. Narcisse
green
2 sentences1988State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118 (La.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 865 , 104 S.Ct. 202 , 78 L.Ed.2d 176 , rehearing denied, 464 U.S. 1004 , 104 S.Ct. 515 , 78 L.Ed.2d 702 (1983). 1987State v. Narcisse, 426 So.2d 118 (La.1983), cert. denied 464 U.S. 865 , 104 S.Ct. 202 , 78 L.Ed.2d 176 (1983). | 2 | 1987–1988 |
| State v. Leierer green | 2 | 1965–1965 |
State v. Lebleu
green
2 sentences1965For this reason such evidence cannot be considered (State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , State v. Gaines et al., 223 La. 711 , 66 So.2d 618 , and State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 , and the cases cited therein) ; the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La. 589 , 105 So. 631 , State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877 , 93 So.2d 200 , State v. Edwards, 232 La. 577 , 94 So.2d 674 , City of Monroe v. Sharpe, 235 La. 1005 , 106 So.2d 450 , State v. Leierer, 242 La. 961 , 140 So.2d 375 1965For this reason such evidence cannot be considered (State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , State v. Gaines et al., 223 La. 711 , 66 So.2d 618 , and State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 , and the cases cited therein) ; the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La. 589 , 105 So. 631 , State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877 , 93 So.2d 200 , State v. Edwards, 232 La. 577 , 94 So.2d 674 , City of Monroe v. Sharpe, 235 La. 1005 , 106 So.2d 450 , State v. Leierer, 242 La. 961 , 140 So.2d 375 | 2 | 1965–1965 |
State v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences1965For this reason such evidence cannot be considered (State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , State v. Gaines et al., 223 La. 711 , 66 So.2d 618 , and State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 , and the cases cited therein) ; the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La. 589 , 105 So. 631 , State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877 , 93 So.2d 200 , State v. Edwards, 232 La. 577 , 94 So.2d 674 , City of Monroe v. Sharpe, 235 La. 1005 , 106 So.2d 450 , State v. Leierer, 242 La. 961 , 140 So.2d 375 1965For this reason such evidence cannot be considered (State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , State v. Gaines et al., 223 La. 711 , 66 So.2d 618 , and State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 , and the cases cited therein) ; the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La. 589 , 105 So. 631 , State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877 , 93 So.2d 200 , State v. Edwards, 232 La. 577 , 94 So.2d 674 , City of Monroe v. Sharpe, 235 La. 1005 , 106 So.2d 450 , State v. Leierer, 242 La. 961 , 140 So.2d 375 | 2 | 1965–1965 |
State v. McAllister
green
2 sentences1965For this reason such evidence cannot be considered (State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , State v. Gaines et al., 223 La. 711 , 66 So.2d 618 , and State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 , and the cases cited therein) ; the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La. 589 , 105 So. 631 , State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877 , 93 So.2d 200 , State v. Edwards, 232 La. 577 , 94 So.2d 674 , City of Monroe v. Sharpe, 235 La. 1005 , 106 So.2d 450 , State v. Leierer, 242 La. 961 , 140 So.2d 375 1965For this reason such evidence cannot be considered (State v. Le-Bleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , State v. Gaines et al., 223 La. 711 , 66 So.2d 618 , and State v. Watson, La., 170 So.2d 107 , and the cases cited therein); the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La. 589 , 105 So. 631 , State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877 , 93 So.2d 200 , State v. Edwards, 232 La. 577 , 94 So.2d 674 , City of Monroe v. Sharpe, 235 La. 1005 , 106 So.2d 450 , State v. Leierer, 242 La. 961 , 140 So.2d 375 , State | 2 | 1965–1965 |
| State v. Edwards neutral | 2 | 1965–1965 |
| State v. Howard green | 2 | 1965–1965 |
| State v. Cannon green | 2 | 1965–1965 |
State v. Gaines
green
2 sentences1965For this reason such evidence cannot be considered (State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , State v. Gaines et al., 223 La. 711 , 66 So.2d 618 , and State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 , and the cases cited therein) ; the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La. 589 , 105 So. 631 , State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877 , 93 So.2d 200 , State v. Edwards, 232 La. 577 , 94 So.2d 674 , City of Monroe v. Sharpe, 235 La. 1005 , 106 So.2d 450 , State v. Leierer, 242 La. 961 , 140 So.2d 375 1965For this reason such evidence cannot be considered (State v. LeBleu, 203 La. 337 , 14 So.2d 17 , State v. Gaines et al., 223 La. 711 , 66 So.2d 618 , and State v. Watson, 247 La. 102 , 170 So.2d 107 , and the cases cited therein) ; the issue involved must be determined only from an examination of the facts as recited in the per curiams of the trial judge (State v. Sullivan, 159 La. 589 , 105 So. 631 , State v. Cannon, 231 La. 877 , 93 So.2d 200 , State v. Edwards, 232 La. 577 , 94 So.2d 674 , City of Monroe v. Sharpe, 235 La. 1005 , 106 So.2d 450 , State v. Leierer, 242 La. 961 , 140 So.2d 375 | 2 | 1965–1965 |
| State v. Watson green | 2 | 1965–1965 |
| City of Monroe v. Sharpe neutral | 2 | 1965–1965 |
| Patterson v. Lewis green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Lacy v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Brumfield green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Rodgers v. Rodgers neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Sanders green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Horton v. McCary green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Lewis green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.