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.
11 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2016 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. Thibodeauxgreen2 sentences2016See also State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673, p. 15 (La. 9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 928 (in the context of Rule XXVIII review “the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury’s sentencing verdict”). 2016See also State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673, p. 15 (La. 9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 928 (in the context of Rule XXVIII review “the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury’s sentencing verdict”). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Moutongreen1 sentence2015See Reed, 653 So.2d at 1176 (“Relator is entitled to enforcement of the court rule without proving actual manipulation in his particular case.”); see also Huls, 95-0541, p. 7, 676 So.2d at 167 (“When the issue of improper allotment has been raised in pre-trial setting, no showing of prejudice has been required for a defendant to successfully raise the issue and to have his case re-allotted under a proper allotment system.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Welcomegreen1 sentence2015See State v. Welcome, 458 So.2d 1235, 1245 (La.1983) (“This court has taken the position that where more than one statutory aggravating circumstance is found by the jury, the failure of the one circumstance does not so taint the proceedings as to invalidate any other aggravating circumstance found and the sentence of death based thereon.”); see also State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673, p. 15 (La.9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 928 (“In the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury’s sentenci | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hulsgreen1 sentence2015See Reed, 653 So.2d at 1176 (“Relator is entitled to enforcement of the court rule without proving actual manipulation in his particular case.”); see also Huls, 95-0541, p. 7, 676 So.2d at 167 (“When the issue of improper allotment has been raised in pre-trial setting, no showing of prejudice has been required for a defendant to successfully raise the issue and to have his case re-allotted under a proper allotment system.”). | 1 | 1 |
Kulczak v. Kontehgreen1 sentence2004See State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673 (La.9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 928 , cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1112 , 120 S.Ct. 1969 , 146 L.Ed.2d 800 (2000) ("In the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this Court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury's sentencing verdict...."). [28] *1091 A. The trial court erred when it permitted the State to introduce evidence supporting a conviction for a more serious offense than that which defendant had been adjudicated delinquent. | 1 | 1 |
Iceland Steamship Co. v. Department of the Armygreen1 sentence2004See State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673 (La.9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 928 , cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1112 , 120 S.Ct. 1969 , 146 L.Ed.2d 800 (2000) ("In the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this Court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury's sentencing verdict...."). [28] *1091 A. The trial court erred when it permitted the State to introduce evidence supporting a conviction for a more serious offense than that which defendant had been adjudicated delinquent. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Indianagreen1 sentence2004See State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673 (La.9/8/99), 750 So.2d 916, 928 , cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1112 , 120 S.Ct. 1969 , 146 L.Ed.2d 800 (2000) ("In the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this Court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury's sentencing verdict...."). [28] *1091 A. The trial court erred when it permitted the State to introduce evidence supporting a conviction for a more serious offense than that which defendant had been adjudicated delinquent. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Scalesgreen1 sentence2000See also State v. Scales, *585 93-2003, p. 10-12 (La.5/22/95), 655 So.2d 1326, 1334 (district attorney's references to Angola lifestyle, and comments diminishing the jury's responsibility for imposing death, although improper, did not constitute reversible error held harmless). | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Californiared2 sentences1999See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (the reviewing court must be able to declare that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, namely, that no reasonable possibility exists that the error contributed to the verdict.) In the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this Court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury's sentencing verdict, essentially the same kind of error that would support the prejudice prong under Strickland for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel 1999See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967) (the reviewing court must be able to declare that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, namely, that no reasonable possibility exists that the error contributed to the verdict.) In the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this Court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury's sentencing verdict, essentially the same kind of error that would support the prejudice prong under Strickland for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2000State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673, p. 15 (La.9/8/99) 750 So.2d 916 ("in the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury's verdict, essentially the same kind of error that would support the prejudice prong under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for claims of ineffective assistance.") Moreover, the State's comments in this case appear less egregious than similar arguments made in other capital cases. 2000State v. Thibodeaux, 98-1673, p. 15 (La.9/8/99) 750 So.2d 916 ("in the context of Rule 28 review, the existence of an arbitrary factor requires this court to find an error of such magnitude that it undermines confidence in the jury's verdict, essentially the same kind of error that would support the prejudice prong under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), for claims of ineffective assistance.") Moreover, the State's comments in this case appear less egregious than similar arguments made in other capital cases. | 2 | 1999–2000 |
State v. Howard
green
1 sentence1999State v. Howard, 98-0064 (La. 4/23/99); 751 So.2d 783 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Raymo
green
1 sentence1983In State v. Raymo, 419 So.2d 858 (La.1982), the Louisiana Supreme Court seemed to indicate that although the assignments of error do not so dictate, all transcripts of evidence in criminal proceedings must be reviewed on the appellate level to determine whether or not there exists sufficient evidence to support a con viction. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of NY
green
2 sentences1981In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., 259 La. 599 , 250 So.2d 754 (1971), the court said 250 So.2d at 755 -756: "A manufacturer of a product which involves a risk of injury to the user is liable to any person, whether the purchaser or a third person, who without fault on his part, sustains an injury caused by a defect in the design, composition, or manufacture of the article, if the injury might reasonably have been anticipated. 1981In Weber v. Fidelity & Casualty Insurance Co. of N. Y., 259 La. 599 , 250 So.2d 754 (1971), the court said 250 So.2d at 755 -756: "A manufacturer of a product which involves a risk of injury to the user is liable to any person, whether the purchaser or a third person, who without fault on his part, sustains an injury caused by a defect in the design, composition, or manufacture of the article, if the injury might reasonably have been anticipated. | 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.