Parish standard in Louisiana

2019The panel found there was no need for the court to "find that the statute is limited to activities which occur during a declared state of emergency." Id. at 34 .

2019The panel found there was no need for the court to "find that the statute is limited to activities which occur during a declared state of emergency." Id. at 34 .

2023Id.

2007App. 1 Cir. 2/11/05), 906 So.2d 565 , 569 n.5. [3] This court, ex proprio motu, ordered the trial court to supplement the record with the missing transcript of the summary judgment hearing and the missing memoranda in support and opposition of the City/Parish's motion for summary judgment.

2005Recent court decisions have read the language of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 literally. "[T]he sheriff is constitutionally and statutorily the chief law enforcement officer of his parish, but his jurisdiction is limited to territorial boundaries of his parish." Hayes v. Parlsem Industrial Services, Inc. 598 So.2d 1194 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1992).

2004In State v. Stevison, 97-3122, p. 1 (La.10/30/98), 721 So.2d 843, 844 , the supreme court affirmed the validity of a predicate offense, finding that “the totality of the circumstances surrounding the 1994 guilty plea demonstrate[d] a valid waiver of the defendant’s right to counsel.” In Stevison , the defendant was not represented by counsel, and when he expressed hesitation, the trial court asked a defense attorney present in the court room to advise him.

2003Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 96-1715, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97), 696 So.2d 1031, 1035 , writ denied, 97-1911 (La.10/31/97), 703 So.2d 29 .

2003Sanders v. Ashland Oil, Inc., 96-1715, p. 7 (La.App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97), 696 So.2d 1031, 1035 , writ denied, 97-1911 (La.10/31/97), 703 So.2d 29 .

1996The leading case on the proper procedure for attacking the constitutionality of a statute is Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 94-1238 (La.11/30/94), 646 So.2d 859 .

1992Since the hearing officer has only those powers granted by the legislature, and since dismissal with prejudice is the ultimate sanction, Allen v. Smith, 390 So.2d 1300 (La.1980), unless this authority was *834 specifically conferred by the legislature, the hearing officer exceeded his authority by refusing to receive evidence offered to prove Bright's claim and by dismissing it.

1988Especially pertinent is the language of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Court v. State, 63 Wis.2d 570 , 217 N.W.2d 676 (1974), which stated that “[cjounty standards would present a problem since some communities cut across county lines.” Id. at 577 , 217 N.W.2d at 679 .

1988Especially pertinent is the language of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in Court v. State, 63 Wis.2d 570 , 217 N.W.2d 676 (1974), which stated that “[cjounty standards would present a problem since some communities cut across county lines.” Id. at 577 , 217 N.W.2d at 679 .

1919Lisso v. Police Jury of Red River Parish, 116 La. 767 , 41 South. 85 , the ruling was that the police jury could not, by levying a prohibitive license tax, establish prohibition in the parish in violation of the requirement of the local option law, that the question of prohibition vel non should be decided by vote of the electors in a special election to be called for that purpose.

1919Lisso v. Police Jury of Red River Parish, 116 La. 767 , 41 South. 85 , the ruling was that the police jury could not, by levying a prohibitive license tax, establish prohibition in the parish in violation of the requirement of the local option law, that the question of prohibition vel non should be decided by vote of the electors in a special election to be called for that purpose.