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.
13 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2018 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Dortheygreen1 sentence2012State v. Dorthey, 623 So.2d 1276, 1280-81 (La. 1993). .When a defendant seeks a downward deviation from the mandatory sentence, he has the burden to rebut the presumption of constitutionality by showing by clear and convincing evidence that he is exceptional, namely that he is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the gravity of the offense, the culpability of the offender, and the circumstances of the case. | 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. Berniard
green
2 sentences2015Berniard , 03-484 at 13, 860 So.2d at 75 . 2011State v. Berniard, 03-484, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/15/03), 860 So.2d 66, 75 , writ denied, 03-3210 (La.3/26/04), 871 So.2d 345 . [ 31 When a defendant seeks a downward deviation from the mandatory sentence, he has the burden to rebut the presumption of constitutionality by showing by clear and convincing evidence that he is exceptional, namely that he is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the gravity of the offense, the culpability of the offender, and the circumstances of the case. | 4 | 2011–2015 |
State v. Berniard
neutral
2 sentences2018Id. 2011State v. Berniard, 03-484, p. 12 (La.App. 5 Cir. 10/15/03), 860 So.2d 66, 75 , writ denied, 03-3210 (La.3/26/04), 871 So.2d 345 . [ 31 When a defendant seeks a downward deviation from the mandatory sentence, he has the burden to rebut the presumption of constitutionality by showing by clear and convincing evidence that he is exceptional, namely that he is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the gravity of the offense, the culpability of the offender, and the circumstances of the case. | 3 | 2011–2018 |
State v. Brown
neutral
2 sentences2016Brown, 01-160 at 15, 788 So.2d at 675 . 2003Brown , 01-160 at 15, 788 So.2d at 675 . | 2 | 2003–2016 |
State v. Young
green
2 sentences2009State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/26/95), 663 So.2d 525, 531 , writ denied, 95-3010 (La.3/22/96), 669 So.2d 1223 . 2003State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/26/95), 663 So.2d 525, 531 , writ denied, 95-3010 (La.3/22/96), 669 So.2d 1223 . | 2 | 2003–2009 |
State v. Young
green
2 sentences2009State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/26/95), 663 So.2d 525, 531 , writ denied, 95-3010 (La.3/22/96), 669 So.2d 1223 . 2003State v. Young, 94-1636, pp. 5-6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/26/95), 663 So.2d 525, 531 , writ denied, 95-3010 (La.3/22/96), 669 So.2d 1223 . | 2 | 2003–2009 |
State v. Wade
green
1 sentence2011To do so, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly show that he is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.” Johnson, supra, 709 So.2d at 676 ; State v. Robbins, 43,240 (La.App.2d Cir.6/4/08), 986 So.2d 828 , writ denied, 2008-1438 (La.2/20/09), 1 So.3d 494 ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), 832 So.2d 977 , writ denied, 2002-2875 (La.4 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Lavergne
neutral
1 sentence2011To do so, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly show that he is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.” Johnson, supra, 709 So.2d at 676 ; State v. Robbins, 43,240 (La.App.2d Cir.6/4/08), 986 So.2d 828 , writ denied, 2008-1438 (La.2/20/09), 1 So.3d 494 ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), 832 So.2d 977 , writ denied, 2002-2875 (La.4 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Tracy
green
1 sentence2011To do so, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly show that he is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.” Johnson, supra, 709 So.2d at 676 ; State v. Robbins, 43,240 (La.App.2d Cir.6/4/08), 986 So.2d 828 , writ denied, 2008-1438 (La.2/20/09), 1 So.3d 494 ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), 832 So.2d 977 , writ denied, 2002-2875 (La.4 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Robbins
green
1 sentence2011To do so, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly show that he is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.” Johnson, supra, 709 So.2d at 676 ; State v. Robbins, 43,240 (La.App.2d Cir.6/4/08), 986 So.2d 828 , writ denied, 2008-1438 (La.2/20/09), 1 So.3d 494 ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), 832 So.2d 977 , writ denied, 2002-2875 (La.4 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2011To do so, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly show that he is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.” Johnson, supra, 709 So.2d at 676 ; State v. Robbins, 43,240 (La.App.2d Cir.6/4/08), 986 So.2d 828 , writ denied, 2008-1438 (La.2/20/09), 1 So.3d 494 ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), 832 So.2d 977 , writ denied, 2002-2875 (La.4 2011To do so, the defendant must “clearly and convincingly show that he is exceptional, which in this context means that because of unusual circumstances this defendant is a victim of the legislature’s failure to assign sentences that are meaningfully tailored to the culpability of the offender, the gravity of the offense, and the circumstances of the case.” Johnson, supra, 709 So.2d at 676 ; State v. Robbins, 43,240 (La.App.2d Cir.6/4/08), 986 So.2d 828 , writ denied, 2008-1438 (La.2/20/09), 1 So.3d 494 ; State v. Wade, 36,295 (La.App.2d Cir.10/23/02), 832 So.2d 977 , writ denied, 2002-2875 (La.4 | 1 | 2011–2011 |
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009A law subject to strict scrutiny because it regulates speech based on its content is presumptively invalid, “and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.” Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. at 817 , 120 S.Ct. 1878 . 2009A law subject to strict scrutiny because it regulates speech based on its content is presumptively invalid, “and the Government bears the burden to rebut that presumption.” Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. at 817 , 120 S.Ct. 1878 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Alexander v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2002In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the Court outlined the steps for a defendant to establish a prima facie violation of the "fair-cross-section" requirement as follows: [T]he defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is *1098 not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury 2002In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the Court outlined the steps for a defendant to establish a prima facie violation of the "fair-cross-section" requirement as follows: [T]he defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is *1098 not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Duren v. Missouri
green
2 sentences2002In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the Court outlined the steps for a defendant to establish a prima facie violation of the "fair-cross-section" requirement as follows: [T]he defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is *1098 not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury 2002In Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364 , 99 S.Ct. 664, 668 , 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979), the Court outlined the steps for a defendant to establish a prima facie violation of the "fair-cross-section" requirement as follows: [T]he defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a "distinctive" group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is *1098 not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Trahan v. Ritterman
green
1 sentence1989Trahan, 368 So.2d at 184 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.