13 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hershberger v. LKM Chinese, L.L.C.green2 sentences2019The foundation of Louisiana's standing requirement is found in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 681, which provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, an action can only be brought by a person having a real and actual interest in what he asserts." Id. , 2014-1079, pp. 3-4, 172 So.3d at 143 (internal citations omitted). 2019The foundation of Louisiana's standing requirement is found in Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure Article 681, which provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, an action can only be brought by a person having a real and actual interest in what he asserts." Id. , 2014-1079, pp. 3-4, 172 So.3d at 143 (internal citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Francisco Paulinogreen1 sentence2010Rakas thus held that passengers present in a vehicle with consent of the owner (and driver) had no Fourth Amendment claim against a police search of the vehicle’s glove compartment and under the seats because “these are areas in which a passenger qua passenger simply would not normally have a legitimate expectation of privacy.” Rakas, 439 U.S. at 148-49 , 99 S.Ct. at 433 ; cf. United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 96 (2nd Cir.1988) (“Rakas simply translated the standing inquiry into the threshold question of whether a defendant has a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tysongreen2 sentences1975See People v. Smith, 34 Mich.App. 205 , 191 N.W.2d 392 (1971), and State v. Tyson, 43 N.J. 411 , 204 A.2d 864 (1964). 1975See People v. Smith, 34 Mich.App. 205 , 191 N.W.2d 392 (1971), and State v. Tyson, 43 N.J. 411 , 204 A.2d 864 (1964). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Herbert Smithgreen2 sentences1975See People v. Smith, 34 Mich.App. 205 , 191 N.W.2d 392 (1971), and State v. Tyson, 43 N.J. 411 , 204 A.2d 864 (1964). 1975See People v. Smith, 34 Mich.App. 205 , 191 N.W.2d 392 (1971), and State v. Tyson, 43 N.J. 411 , 204 A.2d 864 (1964). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Melancon
green
2 sentences2019“The standing inquiry requires careful examination of whether a particular litigant is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claim it has asserted.” In re Matter Under Investigation, 07-1853, p. 10 (La. 7/1/09), 15 So.3d 972 , 981 (citing Melancon, 935 So.2d at 668 ). 2009Mel ancon, 05-1702 at p. 10, 935 So.2d at 668 (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3325 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)). | 3 | 2009–2019 |
Rakas v. Illinois
green
2 sentences2010Rakas thus held that passengers present in a vehicle with consent of the owner (and driver) had no Fourth Amendment claim against a police search of the vehicle’s glove compartment and under the seats because “these are areas in which a passenger qua passenger simply would not normally have a legitimate expectation of privacy.” Rakas, 439 U.S. at 148-49 , 99 S.Ct. at 433 ; cf. United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 96 (2nd Cir.1988) (“Rakas simply translated the standing inquiry into the threshold question of whether a defendant has a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim.”). 2010Rakas thus held that passengers present in a vehicle with consent of the owner (and driver) had no Fourth Amendment claim against a police search of the vehicle’s glove compartment and under the seats because “these are areas in which a passenger qua passenger simply would not normally have a legitimate expectation of privacy.” Rakas, 439 U.S. at 148-49 , 99 S.Ct. at 433 ; cf. United States v. Paulino, 850 F.2d 93, 96 (2nd Cir.1988) (“Rakas simply translated the standing inquiry into the threshold question of whether a defendant has a cognizable Fourth Amendment claim.”). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Allen v. Wright
red
2 sentences2009Mel ancon, 05-1702 at p. 10, 935 So.2d at 668 (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3325 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)). 2009Mel ancon, 05-1702 at p. 10, 935 So.2d at 668 (citing Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 752 , 104 S.Ct. 3315, 3325 , 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Book People, Incorporated v. Wong
green
1 sentence2025Book People, Incorporated v. Wong, 91 F. 4th 318 , 328 ( 5th Cir. 2024). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Matter Under Investigation
green
1 sentence2019“The standing inquiry requires careful examination of whether a particular litigant is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claim it has asserted.” In re Matter Under Investigation, 07-1853, p. 10 (La. 7/1/09), 15 So.3d 972 , 981 (citing Melancon, 935 So.2d at 668 ). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
International Primate Protection League v. Administrators of Tulane Educational Fund
green
1 sentence2014When the facts alleged in the petition provide a remedy to someone, but the plaintiff who seeks the relief for himself is not the person in whose favor the law extends the remedy, the petitioner lacks standing. 7 Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
United States v. Salvucci
green
2 sentences2010United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). 2010United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Owen
green
1 sentence2010In State v. Owen, 453 So.2d 1202 (La.1984), the Court explained how an individual’s standing to challenge a violation of privacy is treated differently by our state and federal constitutions as follows: The federal jurisprudential rule is that one has standing only if the search or seizure allegedly violated the defendant’s own constitutional rights; and, the defendant’s fourth amendment rights are violated only when the challenged conduct invaded the defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy rather than that of a third person. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Alderman v. United States
green
2 sentences2010United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). 2010United States v. Salvucci, 448 U.S. 83 , 100 S.Ct. 2547 , 65 L.Ed.2d 619 (1980); Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 , 99 S.Ct. 421 , 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978); Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165 , 89 S.Ct. 961 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Talbert
green
1 sentence2005An example of the application of Louisiana's standing rule is seen in State v. Talbert, supra . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
cluster 777884
green
1 sentence2005Tubos de Acero de Mexico, S.A., 292 F.3d at 480 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Ins. Co.
green
1 sentence1986Since the decisions in Czarniecki and in Hughes v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Co., 340 So.2d 293 (La.1976), the courts have generally determined the issue of implied permission (at least in cases in which there was no specific prohibition by the named insured against letting others drive the vehicle) by inquiring whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the first permittee would allow others to operate the automobile. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.