12 Louisiana opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Councilgreen2 sentences2026In State in Interest of A.C., 643 So. 2d 719, 732 (La. 1994), on reh’g, 93-1125 (La. 10/17/94), 643 So. 2d 743 , we explained that “the core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice between litigants.” Additional functions of the courts allowed by the “doctrine of inherent powers” were noted in Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council, 520 So.2d 393, 397 (La. 1988): “to provide the power to punish for contempt, to adopt rules of practice, to regulate lawyer admission to practice and lawyer discipline, and to require the appropriation or expenditure of funds reasonably necessary for 2024In other words, under the doctrine of inherent powers, “courts have the power (other than those powers expressly enumerated in the constitution and the statutes) to do all things reasonably necessary for the exercise of their functions as courts.” Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council, 520 So.2d 393, 397 (La. 1988). | 3 | 6 |
Imbornone v. Earlygreen2 sentences2024Since it is based on the separation of powers, which includes the concepts of checks and balances and functional differentiation, it serves primarily to shield the courts’ ability to judge independently and fairly from improper interference due to the actions or inactions of executive or legislative officials .... [A] court’s inherent judicial power includes a measure of administrative authority not unlike that primarily and exclusively vested in the executive department, but only so much as is reasonably necessary to its own judicial function. [Internal citation omitted.] In re Courthouse Sec 2000Analogous to the reasoning in Imbornone, supra , we are of the opinion that the Legislature did not intend the Public Records Act, R.S. 44:1 et seq , to apply to the functions of the judiciary, and that the judiciary's inherent powers under the inherent powers doctrine includes both the adjudicatory functions and the administrative functions of the court. | 1 | 3 |
State in Interest of ACgreen1 sentence2026In State in Interest of A.C., 643 So. 2d 719, 732 (La. 1994), on reh’g, 93-1125 (La. 10/17/94), 643 So. 2d 743 , we explained that “the core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice between litigants.” Additional functions of the courts allowed by the “doctrine of inherent powers” were noted in Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council, 520 So.2d 393, 397 (La. 1988): “to provide the power to punish for contempt, to adopt rules of practice, to regulate lawyer admission to practice and lawyer discipline, and to require the appropriation or expenditure of funds reasonably necessary for | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bester v. SUPREME COURT COM. ON BAR ADM.
green
2 sentences2024“The inherent powers doctrine exists ‘because it is essential to the survival of the judiciary as an independent branch of government.’” Id. (quoting Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council, 520 So.2d 393, 397 (La.1988)). 2002Note, McCain v. Grant Parish Police Jury: Judicial Use of the Inherent Powers Doctrine to Compel Adequate Judicial Funding, 46 La.L.Rev. 157 (1985); F. Stumpf, Inherent Powers of the Courts: Sword and Shield of the Judiciary (1994); Cf. Bester v. Louisiana Supreme Court Committee on Bar Admissions, 00-1360 (La.2/21/01), 779 So.2d 715 , and the cases cited therein. | 2 | 2002–2024 |
State in Interest of AC
green
1 sentence2026In State in Interest of A.C., 643 So. 2d 719, 732 (La. 1994), on reh’g, 93-1125 (La. 10/17/94), 643 So. 2d 743 , we explained that “the core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice between litigants.” Additional functions of the courts allowed by the “doctrine of inherent powers” were noted in Konrad v. Jefferson Parish Council, 520 So.2d 393, 397 (La. 1988): “to provide the power to punish for contempt, to adopt rules of practice, to regulate lawyer admission to practice and lawyer discipline, and to require the appropriation or expenditure of funds reasonably necessary for | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Umezulike
green
1 sentence2008"Under the inherent powers doctrine, a court possesses inherently all of the power necessary for the exercise of its jurisdiction even though not granted expressly by law." State v. Umezulike, 03-1404 (La.2/25/04), 866 So.2d 794, 798 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
The United States v. Hudson and Goodwin
green
2 sentences1988United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812), 3 L.Ed. 259 ; McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). 1988United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812), 3 L.Ed. 259 ; McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
M'culloch v. State of Maryland
green
1 sentence1988United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32 (1812), 3 L.Ed. 259 ; McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Wayne Circuit Judges v. Wayne County
green
2 sentences1981Judges for the Third Judicial Circuit v. County of Wayne, 383 Mich. 10 , 172 N.W.2d 436 (1969); modified and opinion substituted 386 Mich. 1 , 190 N.W.2d 228 (1971); Commonwealth ex rel. 1981Judges for the Third Judicial Circuit v. County of Wayne, 383 Mich. 10 , 172 N.W.2d 436 (1969); modified and opinion substituted 386 Mich. 1 , 190 N.W.2d 228 (1971); Commonwealth ex rel. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Wayne Circuit Judges v. Wayne County
red
2 sentences1981Judges for the Third Judicial Circuit v. County of Wayne, 383 Mich. 10 , 172 N.W.2d 436 (1969); modified and opinion substituted 386 Mich. 1 , 190 N.W.2d 228 (1971); Commonwealth ex rel. 1981Judges for the Third Judicial Circuit v. County of Wayne, 383 Mich. 10 , 172 N.W.2d 436 (1969); modified and opinion substituted 386 Mich. 1 , 190 N.W.2d 228 (1971); Commonwealth ex rel. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.