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.
10 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2014 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. Hattongreen2 sentences2014In addition, while this Court has repeatedly cautioned the district courts against declaring a statute unconstitutional on grounds not advanced by the litigants, see, e.g., State v. Over-street, 12-1854 (La.3/19/13), 111 So.3d 308 ; State v. Duheart, 12-0085 (La.10/26/12), 125 So.3d 1054 ; State v. Camese, 11-2534 (La.9/12/12), 99 So.3d 636 ; State v. Bazile, 11-2201 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 1 ; State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709 , these decisions rest on the principle that "a judge's sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of con 2012See State v. Mercadel, 03-3015, p. 8 (La.5/25/04), 874 So.2d 829, 834 (wherein the supreme court explained that “a court should avoid constitutional questions whenever the case can be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds”) and State v. Hatton, 07-2377, p. 18 (La.7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709, 721 (wherein the supreme court noted that “[a] judge’s sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of constitutionality accorded legislative enactments”). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Cinelgreen2 sentences2000See State v. Cinel, 94-KA-0942, 646 So.2d 309, 313 (La.1994) (citations omitted) ("[w]henever it is possible, [Louisiana] courts have the duty to interpret statutes in a manner consistent with" our state and federal constitutions). 1995See State v. Cinel, 94-KA-0942, 646 So.2d 309, 313 (La.1994) ( citations omitted ) ("[w]henever it is possible, [Louisiana] courts have the duty to interpret statutes in a manner consistent with" our state and federal constitutions). | 2 | 2 |
Istre v. Mechegreen1 sentence2014In addition, while this Court has repeatedly cautioned the district courts against declaring a statute unconstitutional on grounds not advanced by the litigants, see, e.g., State v. Over-street, 12-1854 (La.3/19/13), 111 So.3d 308 ; State v. Duheart, 12-0085 (La.10/26/12), 125 So.3d 1054 ; State v. Camese, 11-2534 (La.9/12/12), 99 So.3d 636 ; State v. Bazile, 11-2201 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 1 ; State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709 , these decisions rest on the principle that "a judge's sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of con | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mercadelgreen1 sentence2012See State v. Mercadel, 03-3015, p. 8 (La.5/25/04), 874 So.2d 829, 834 (wherein the supreme court explained that “a court should avoid constitutional questions whenever the case can be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds”) and State v. Hatton, 07-2377, p. 18 (La.7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709, 721 (wherein the supreme court noted that “[a] judge’s sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of constitutionality accorded legislative enactments”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
BD. OF COM'RS OF ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT v. Connick
green
2 sentences2013Id. pp. 3-4, at 765 (citing Bd. of Comm’rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Connick, 94-3161, p. 6 (La.3/9/95), 654 So.2d 1073, 1076 ). 2000As the court in Vallo noted, one of the benefits of holding a contradictory hearing and allowing the parties time to research the constitutional issue and prepare thoughtful arguments on it is that a reviewing court is provided with a more complete record from which it can be determined "whether the trial court attempted to construe the statute so as to preserve its constitutionality." [5] Id. *765 The court addressed this matter again in Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Connick , where it emphasized that "for a court sua sponte to declare a statute unconstitutional is a derogation of | 5 | 2000–2013 |
State v. Overstreet
green
1 sentence2014In addition, while this Court has repeatedly cautioned the district courts against declaring a statute unconstitutional on grounds not advanced by the litigants, see, e.g., State v. Over-street, 12-1854 (La.3/19/13), 111 So.3d 308 ; State v. Duheart, 12-0085 (La.10/26/12), 125 So.3d 1054 ; State v. Camese, 11-2534 (La.9/12/12), 99 So.3d 636 ; State v. Bazile, 11-2201 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 1 ; State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709 , these decisions rest on the principle that "a judge's sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of con | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Duheart
neutral
1 sentence2014In addition, while this Court has repeatedly cautioned the district courts against declaring a statute unconstitutional on grounds not advanced by the litigants, see, e.g., State v. Over-street, 12-1854 (La.3/19/13), 111 So.3d 308 ; State v. Duheart, 12-0085 (La.10/26/12), 125 So.3d 1054 ; State v. Camese, 11-2534 (La.9/12/12), 99 So.3d 636 ; State v. Bazile, 11-2201 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 1 ; State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709 , these decisions rest on the principle that "a judge's sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of con | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Bazile
green
1 sentence2014In addition, while this Court has repeatedly cautioned the district courts against declaring a statute unconstitutional on grounds not advanced by the litigants, see, e.g., State v. Over-street, 12-1854 (La.3/19/13), 111 So.3d 308 ; State v. Duheart, 12-0085 (La.10/26/12), 125 So.3d 1054 ; State v. Camese, 11-2534 (La.9/12/12), 99 So.3d 636 ; State v. Bazile, 11-2201 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 1 ; State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709 , these decisions rest on the principle that "a judge's sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of con | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Camese
neutral
1 sentence2014In addition, while this Court has repeatedly cautioned the district courts against declaring a statute unconstitutional on grounds not advanced by the litigants, see, e.g., State v. Over-street, 12-1854 (La.3/19/13), 111 So.3d 308 ; State v. Duheart, 12-0085 (La.10/26/12), 125 So.3d 1054 ; State v. Camese, 11-2534 (La.9/12/12), 99 So.3d 636 ; State v. Bazile, 11-2201 (La. 1/24/12), 85 So.3d 1 ; State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), 985 So.2d 709 , these decisions rest on the principle that "a judge's sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of con | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2000As the court in Vallo noted, one of the benefits of holding a contradictory hearing and allowing the parties time to research the constitutional issue and prepare thoughtful arguments on it is that a reviewing court is provided with a more complete record from which it can be determined "whether the trial court attempted to construe the statute so as to preserve its constitutionality." [5] Id. *765 The court addressed this matter again in Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist. v. Connick , where it emphasized that "for a court sua sponte to declare a statute unconstitutional is a derogation of | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.