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.
14 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1929–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Powell v. Texasgreen2 sentences2017See also Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 545 , 88 S.Ct. 2145, 2160 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) (Black, J. concurring) (“[L]egislatures have always been allowed wide freedom to determine the extent to which moral culpability should be a prerequisite to conviction of a crime.”). 2017See also Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 545 , 88 S.Ct. 2145, 2160 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968) (Black, J. concurring) (“[L]egislatures have always been allowed wide freedom to determine the extent to which moral culpability should be a prerequisite to conviction of a crime.”). | 4 | 4 |
Lambert v. Californiagreen2 sentences2017R.S. 14:11 provides that in some crimes “no intent is required.” While offenses that dispose of a scienter requirement are not favored, the United States Supreme Court has noted that the legislatures’ authority to define a criminal offense includes the power to “exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.” Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 , 78 S.Ct. 240, 242 , 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1958). 2017R.S. 14:11 provides that in some crimes “no intent is required.” While offenses that dispose of a scienter requirement are not favored, the United States Supreme Court has noted that the legislatures’ authority to define a criminal offense includes the power to “exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.” Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 , 78 S.Ct. 240, 242 , 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1958). | 1 | 5 |
United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.green2 sentences2016Cinel is also in accord with United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 72 , 115 S.Ct. 464 , 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994), in which the Supreme Court held that knowledge of the age of the performer for purposes of a child pornography charge was an “elemental fact” to which the scienter requirement must be applied, because | nnon-obscene, sexually explicit materials involving adults are protected by the First Amendment. 2016Cinel is also in accord with United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 72 , 115 S.Ct. 464 , 130 L.Ed.2d 372 (1994), in which the Supreme Court held that knowledge of the age of the performer for purposes of a child pornography charge was an “elemental fact” to which the scienter requirement must be applied, because | nnon-obscene, sexually explicit materials involving adults are protected by the First Amendment. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Walkergreen2 sentences1983I disagree that a “rational trier of fact could conclude that every reasonable hypothesis of innocence had been excluded.” Regarding the scienter requirement, our Supreme Court said in State v. Walker, 350 So.2d 176, 178 (La.1977): [m]ere possession of stolen property should not create a presumption that the person in possession of the property received it with knowledge that it was stolen by someone else. 1983In Walker, supra at 178 , the court held with regard to the scienter requirement: “... | 1 | 2 |
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.green1 sentence2023Vill. of Hoffman Ests., 455 U.S. at 498-99 (footnotes omitted); see also, Med Express Ambulance Services, Inc. v. Evangeline Par. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Graniergreen2 sentences2016See State v. Granier, 99-3511, pp. 3-4 (La.7/6/00), 765 So.2d 998, 1000-01 (“While offenses that dispose of a scienter requirement are not favored, the United States Supreme Court has noted that the legislatures’ authority to define a criminal offense includes the power to ‘exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.’ ”) (quoting Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 , 78 S.Ct. 240 , 2 L.Ed.2d 228 (1958)). 2016See State v. Granier, 99-3511, pp. 3-4 (La. 7/6/00), 765 So. 2d 998, 1000-01 (“While offenses that dispose of a scienter requirement are not favored, the United States Supreme Court has noted that the legislatures’ authority to define a criminal offense includes the power to ‘exclude elements of knowledge and diligence from its definition.’”) (quoting Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 228 (1958)). | 1 | 1 |
Cadle Co. v. Friedheimgreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1007 (6th Cir.2007) (“whether the Acts came into play only upon a finding of scienter — [is] not particularly germane [and does] not alter the conclusion that the effects of the Registration Act and Monitoring Act are not so punitive as to negate the State’s clearly expressed intent to create a civil regulatory scheme”), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 921, 129 S.Ct. 287 , 172 L.Ed.2d 210 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Bredesengreen1 sentence2012See, e.g., Doe v. Bredesen, 507 F.3d 998, 1007 (6th Cir.2007) (“whether the Acts came into play only upon a finding of scienter — [is] not particularly germane [and does] not alter the conclusion that the effects of the Registration Act and Monitoring Act are not so punitive as to negate the State’s clearly expressed intent to create a civil regulatory scheme”), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 921, 129 S.Ct. 287 , 172 L.Ed.2d 210 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Video Joe, Inc.green1 sentence1995Applying this rationale to the instant case, the defendant cites State v. Rose, 147 La. 243 , 84 So. 643 (1920), and State v. Video Joe, Inc., 578 So.2d 182, 189 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1991), for the proposition that a statute banning lewd dancing must have a scienter requirement. | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Californiagreen2 sentences1995See also Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), reh'g denied, 361 U.S. 950 , 80 S.Ct. 399 , 4 L.Ed.2d 383 (1960). 1995See also Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), reh'g denied, 361 U.S. 950 , 80 S.Ct. 399 , 4 L.Ed.2d 383 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
LaVallee v. Corbogreen1 sentence1995See also Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), reh'g denied, 361 U.S. 950 , 80 S.Ct. 399 , 4 L.Ed.2d 383 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
De Veau v. Braistedgreen1 sentence1995See also Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), reh'g denied, 361 U.S. 950 , 80 S.Ct. 399 , 4 L.Ed.2d 383 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Thomasgreen1 sentence1995See also Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147 , 80 S.Ct. 215 , 4 L.Ed.2d 205 (1959), reh'g denied, 361 U.S. 950 , 80 S.Ct. 399 , 4 L.Ed.2d 383 (1960). | 1 | 1 |
New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellancagreen2 sentences1995The Supreme Court has recognized that a state has "absolute power under the Twenty-first Amendment to prohibit totally the sale of liquor within its boundaries ... [and] ... has broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the times, places, and circumstances under which liquor may be sold." Bellanca, 452 U.S. at 715 , 101 S.Ct. at 2600 (citations omitted). 1995The Supreme Court has recognized that a state has "absolute power under the Twenty-first Amendment to prohibit totally the sale of liquor within its boundaries ... [and] ... has broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the times, places, and circumstances under which liquor may be sold." Bellanca, 452 U.S. at 715 , 101 S.Ct. at 2600 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Grahamgreen1 sentence1983R.S. 14:69 does not create any presumptions and the State ‘must prove that the accused actually knew or had good reason to believe that the property was stolen before a conviction under R.S. 14:69 can be obtained.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.) In State v. Graham, 422 So.2d 123, 129 (La.1982), the court articulated a dual test to determine the sufficiency of evidence in cases where, as here, the State’s proof rests entirely on circumstantial evidence: The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires this court to review the evidence upon which a criminal conviction is based to determine wh | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Holland v. Buckley
green
1 sentence2016The amendment to Article 2321 returns the law for animals (other than dogs) to the standard that was applied before Holland v. Buckley, 305 So.2d 113 (La.1974)— the scienter standard—i.e., the first bite rule. 7 See Abolition of Strict Liability, 43 Loy. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Rose
green
2 sentences1995Applying this rationale to the instant case, the defendant cites State v. Rose, 147 La. 243 , 84 So. 643 (1920), and State v. Video Joe, Inc., 578 So.2d 182, 189 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1991), for the proposition that a statute banning lewd dancing must have a scienter requirement. 1995Applying this rationale to the instant case, the defendant cites State v. Rose, 147 La. 243 , 84 So. 643 (1920), and State v. Video Joe, Inc., 578 So.2d 182, 189 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1991), for the proposition that a statute banning lewd dancing must have a scienter requirement. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Henderson
green
2 sentences1983In addition, in State v. Henderson, 296 So.2d 805 (La.1974), we held that R.S. 14:69 does not create any presumptions and the State ‘must prove that the accused actually knew or had good reason to believe that the property was stolen before a conviction under R.S. 14:69 can be obtained.’ 296 So.2d at 807 . 1983In addition, in State v. Henderson, 296 So.2d 805 (La.1974), we held that R.S. 14:69 does not create any presumptions and the State ‘must prove that the accused actually knew or had good reason to believe that the property was stolen before a conviction under R.S. 14:69 can be obtained.’ 296 So.2d at 807 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Terrell
green
1 sentence1983State v. Terrell, 352 So.2d 220 (La.1977). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Delisle v. Bourriague
green
1 sentence1929Bourriague, 105 La. 77 , 29 So. 731 , 733, 54 L.R.A. 420 , a case in which the Supreme Court was reviewing a decision of this court on certiorari, this court held: “We do not think that the doctrine of scienter as a prerequisite to the liability of the owner finds lodgment in our law and jurisprudence.” It was there pointed out that in France, from which source our Codal article was obtained, the commentators Marcade and Demolombe, and others, were not in entire agreement, but the unqualified statement of liability in our Code was pointed to as justifying the exclusion of the doctrine of scien | 1 | 1929–1929 |
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.