10 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ellins v. Department of Healthgreen2 sentences2021App. 4th Cir. 1992) (citing Ellins v. Department of Health, 505 So. 2d 74, 76 (La. 2018Ellins v. Department of Health , 505 So.2d 74 , 76 (La. | 3 | 4 |
Montgomery v. Department of Streetsgreen2 sentences2021“The purpose of the notice requirement…is to inform the employee of the charges against him in detail, and to limit and restrict the commission hearing to those charges.” Montgomery v. Dep’t of Streets, 593 So. 2d 1352, 1354 (La. 2014She relies upon Montgomery v. Dep’t of Streets, 593 So.2d 1352 (LaApp. 4th Cir. 1992), in arguing that the purpose of the notice requirement is based on the constitutional duty of the appointing authority to inform the employee in detail of charges, and also to limit subsequent proceedings to those charges. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Catheygreen2 sentences2010State v. Billiot, 421 So.2d 864, 867 (La.1982); State v. Cathey, 493 So.2d 842, 861 (La. 1988If it fails to do so a confession or inculpatory statement shall not be admissible in evidence." This court stated in State v. Cathey, 493 So.2d 842, 851 (La.App. 5 Cir.1986), writ denied, 500 So.2d 419 , cert. denied, Cathey v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2181 , 95 L.Ed.2d 838 (1987), "The purpose of the notice requirement of C.Cr.P. art. 768 is to prevent surprise and allow adequate time for the preparation of a defense. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Billiotgreen1 sentence2010State v. Billiot, 421 So.2d 864, 867 (La.1982); State v. Cathey, 493 So.2d 842, 861 (La. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cathey
neutral
2 sentences1999App. 5 Cir.1986), writ denied, 500 So.2d 419 (La.1987) said: The purpose of the notice requirement of C.Cr.P. art. 768 is to prevent surprise and allow adequate time for the preparation of a defense. 1988If it fails to do so a confession or inculpatory statement shall not be admissible in evidence." This court stated in State v. Cathey, 493 So.2d 842, 851 (La.App. 5 Cir.1986), writ denied, 500 So.2d 419 , cert. denied, Cathey v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2181 , 95 L.Ed.2d 838 (1987), "The purpose of the notice requirement of C.Cr.P. art. 768 is to prevent surprise and allow adequate time for the preparation of a defense. | 2 | 1988–1999 |
State v. Wade
green
2 sentences1994La.C.Cr.P. art. 726 A (1977) requires notice to the state by a defendant if `[he] intends to introduce testimony relating to a mental disease, defect, or other condition bearing upon the issue of whether he had the mental state required for the offense charged.' "The purpose of the notice requirement of Article 726 A is merely to require discovery of the intent to use such evidence (when admissible, as on a plea of insanity), not to provide substantively for its admissibility on the issue of specific intent." Wade, 375 So.2d at 98 . 1986State v. Wade, supra. In the instant case, defendant’s only plea to the charge was not guilty. | 2 | 1986–1994 |
Applegate v. Debrovir, Oakes & Gebhardt
green
1 sentence1988If it fails to do so a confession or inculpatory statement shall not be admissible in evidence." This court stated in State v. Cathey, 493 So.2d 842, 851 (La.App. 5 Cir.1986), writ denied, 500 So.2d 419 , cert. denied, Cathey v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2181 , 95 L.Ed.2d 838 (1987), "The purpose of the notice requirement of C.Cr.P. art. 768 is to prevent surprise and allow adequate time for the preparation of a defense. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Nu-Car Carriers, Inc. v. Varnum
green
1 sentence1988If it fails to do so a confession or inculpatory statement shall not be admissible in evidence." This court stated in State v. Cathey, 493 So.2d 842, 851 (La.App. 5 Cir.1986), writ denied, 500 So.2d 419 , cert. denied, Cathey v. Louisiana, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2181 , 95 L.Ed.2d 838 (1987), "The purpose of the notice requirement of C.Cr.P. art. 768 is to prevent surprise and allow adequate time for the preparation of a defense. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.