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.
15 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 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. Kennedygreen2 sentences2014See State v. Kennedy, 438 So.2d 210, 212-213 (La.1983); State v. Jackson, 424 So.2d 997 (La.1982); State v. Brown, 558 So.2d 1226, 1230 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990) (“Because the incompleteness of the record could probably be eliminated by another hearing on the motion to suppress, we find appropriate the procedure of remand for a reopened hearing on the motion.”); State v. Williams, 536 So.2d 612 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988) (where the appellate court remanded the case and ordered the trial court to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress and allow defense counsel to introduce into evidence the tapes o 2012See State v. Kennedy, 438 So.2d 210, 212-13 (La.1983) (per curiam). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Cabanasgreen2 sentences1998Cf. State v. Cabanas, 552 So.2d 1040, 1046 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 41 (La.1990) (remanding for a reopened hearing on a motion to suppress); State v. Collins, 546 So.2d 1246, 1256-57 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 599 (La.1990) (remanding for a reopened hearing on a motion to quash). 1996See State v. Cabanas, 552 So.2d 1040 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 41 (La.1990); State v. Bohn, 95-0664 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/23/96), 668 So.2d 756 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2014See State v. Kennedy, 438 So.2d 210, 212-213 (La.1983); State v. Jackson, 424 So.2d 997 (La.1982); State v. Brown, 558 So.2d 1226, 1230 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990) (“Because the incompleteness of the record could probably be eliminated by another hearing on the motion to suppress, we find appropriate the procedure of remand for a reopened hearing on the motion.”); State v. Williams, 536 So.2d 612 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988) (where the appellate court remanded the case and ordered the trial court to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress and allow defense counsel to introduce into evidence the tapes o 1990Cf. State v. Jackson, 424 So.2d 997, 1000 (La.1982). 1 Because the incompleteness of the record could probably be eliminated by another hearing on the motion to suppress, we find appropriate the procedure of remand for a reopened hearing on the motion. | 1 | 5 |
Massey v. Century Ready Mix Corp.green2 sentences1998Cf. State v. Cabanas, 552 So.2d 1040, 1046 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 41 (La.1990) (remanding for a reopened hearing on a motion to suppress); State v. Collins, 546 So.2d 1246, 1256-57 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 599 (La.1990) (remanding for a reopened hearing on a motion to quash). 1996See State v. Cabanas, 552 So.2d 1040 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 41 (La.1990); State v. Bohn, 95-0664 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/23/96), 668 So.2d 756 . | 1 | 2 |
Edwards v. Arizonagreen2 sentences2022See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 481-85 , 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1883-85 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2022See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 481-85 , 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1883-85 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sterlinggreen1 sentence2014See State v. Kennedy, 438 So.2d 210, 212-213 (La.1983); State v. Jackson, 424 So.2d 997 (La.1982); State v. Brown, 558 So.2d 1226, 1230 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990) (“Because the incompleteness of the record could probably be eliminated by another hearing on the motion to suppress, we find appropriate the procedure of remand for a reopened hearing on the motion.”); State v. Williams, 536 So.2d 612 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988) (where the appellate court remanded the case and ordered the trial court to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress and allow defense counsel to introduce into evidence the tapes o | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2014See State v. Kennedy, 438 So.2d 210, 212-213 (La.1983); State v. Jackson, 424 So.2d 997 (La.1982); State v. Brown, 558 So.2d 1226, 1230 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990) (“Because the incompleteness of the record could probably be eliminated by another hearing on the motion to suppress, we find appropriate the procedure of remand for a reopened hearing on the motion.”); State v. Williams, 536 So.2d 612 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988) (where the appellate court remanded the case and ordered the trial court to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress and allow defense counsel to introduce into evidence the tapes o | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen1 sentence2012See State v. Green, 96-0256 (La.App. 1st Cir.12/10/96), 687 So.2d 109, 113-14 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Collinsgreen1 sentence1998Cf. State v. Cabanas, 552 So.2d 1040, 1046 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 41 (La.1990) (remanding for a reopened hearing on a motion to suppress); State v. Collins, 546 So.2d 1246, 1256-57 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 599 (La.1990) (remanding for a reopened hearing on a motion to quash). | 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. Edwards
green
2 sentences1986State v. Edwards, 375 So.2d 1365 , [1368] (La.1979). 1982State v. Edwards, supra . *1001 Because we have not completed our review of other substantial contentions raised by this appeal, we otherwise retain jurisdiction of this appeal, with the following directions: if the trial court finds that the confession and evidence should have been suppressed, it is directed to grant the defendant's motion for a new trial (and the present appeal will be mooted); if, on the other hand, the trial court reinstates its denial of the motion to suppress, it is ordered to transmit to this court its ruling and the record of the reopened hearing on the motion to suppr | 3 | 1982–1986 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences2024The Court stated, “We believe that, in the interest of justice and judicial economy, this defendant should not suffer 5 an undue burden and delay on post-conviction procedures due to defense counsel's technical error in failing to formally introduce the taped confession into evidence.” Id. 2014See State v. Kennedy, 438 So.2d 210, 212-213 (La.1983); State v. Jackson, 424 So.2d 997 (La.1982); State v. Brown, 558 So.2d 1226, 1230 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990) (“Because the incompleteness of the record could probably be eliminated by another hearing on the motion to suppress, we find appropriate the procedure of remand for a reopened hearing on the motion.”); State v. Williams, 536 So.2d 612 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1988) (where the appellate court remanded the case and ordered the trial court to reopen the hearing on the motion to suppress and allow defense counsel to introduce into evidence the tapes o | 2 | 2014–2024 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2022See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 481-85 , 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1883-85 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). 2022See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 481-85 , 101 S.Ct. 1880, 1883-85 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444-45 , 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1612 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Shanks
green
1 sentence2000Shanks , 97-1885 at pp. 12-14, 715 So.2d at 163-64 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Roberts
green
1 sentence1998Cf. State v. Cabanas, 552 So.2d 1040, 1046 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 41 (La.1990) (remanding for a reopened hearing on a motion to suppress); State v. Collins, 546 So.2d 1246, 1256-57 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 558 So.2d 599 (La.1990) (remanding for a reopened hearing on a motion to quash). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Bohn
neutral
1 sentence1996See State v. Cabanas, 552 So.2d 1040 (La.App. 1st Cir.1989), writ denied, 556 So.2d 41 (La.1990); State v. Bohn, 95-0664 (La.App. 1st Cir. 2/23/96), 668 So.2d 756 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. LeBlanc
green
1 sentence1996If the trial court finds that the cocaine the state seeks to use against defendant to convict is the same for both the charge for possession and the charge for distribution under State v. Leblanc, 618 So.2d 949, 957 , it must afford defendant an ^opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea and grant the motion to quash. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Foucha v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences1995The trial court did not resolve the conflict in medical evidence as to defendant’s mental illness, a necessary condition under Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 , 112 S.Ct. 1780 , 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992) (along with being a danger to himself or others) for continued confinement. 1995The trial court did not resolve the conflict in medical evidence as to defendant’s mental illness, a necessary condition under Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 , 112 S.Ct. 1780 , 118 L.Ed.2d 437 (1992) (along with being a danger to himself or others) for continued confinement. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Duncan
green
1 sentence1991State v. Duncan, 563 So.2d at 1271-1272 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.