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.
9 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Crosby
green
2 sentences2011Defendant was re-arraigned and pled guilty to the amended charge on April 21, 2010, pursuant to State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). 1989After his motion to suppress evidence was denied by the trial court defendant pled guilty to possession of a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of R.S. 14:95.1, reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion in accordance with State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976). | 4 | 1980–2011 |
Lewis v. United States
green
2 sentences2017It likewise *1010 noted that "a convicted felon may challenge the validity of a prior conviction, or otherwise remove his disability, before obtaining a firearm" and in that case, the defendant "could have challenged his prior conviction in an appropriate proceeding in the Florida state courts." Id. , 445 U.S. at 64 -65 , 100 S.Ct. at 920 -921 . 2017It likewise *1010 noted that "a convicted felon may challenge the validity of a prior conviction, or otherwise remove his disability, before obtaining a firearm" and in that case, the defendant "could have challenged his prior conviction in an appropriate proceeding in the Florida state courts." Id. , 445 U.S. at 64 -65 , 100 S.Ct. at 920 -921 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Sanders
green
1 sentence2012State v. Sanders, 337 So.2d 1131 (La.1976). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Colomb
neutral
1 sentence1999State v. Colomb, 98-210, p. 10 (La.App. 3rd Cir.10/7/98), 720 So.2d 374, 379-80 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Blache
green
1 sentence1998The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Blache, 480 So.2d 304 (La.1985) recognized that self-defense can justify the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of La. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
United States v. Tucker
green
2 sentences1983Although the Court therein permitted the use of uncounseled convictions in such prosecution, it expressly referred to two other cases: United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct. 589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), "where it was held that such a conviction [invalid under Gideon ] could not be considered by a court in sentencing a defendant after a subsequent conviction;" and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473 , 92 S.Ct. 1014 , 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972), "where the Court disallowed the use of the conviction to impeach the general credibility of the defendant." In my view, the question of whether uncounseled 1983Although the Court therein permitted the use of uncounseled convictions in such prosecution, it expressly referred to two other cases: United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct. 589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), "where it was held that such a conviction [invalid under Gideon ] could not be considered by a court in sentencing a defendant after a subsequent conviction;" and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473 , 92 S.Ct. 1014 , 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972), "where the Court disallowed the use of the conviction to impeach the general credibility of the defendant." In my view, the question of whether uncounseled | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Loper v. Beto
green
2 sentences1983Although the Court therein permitted the use of uncounseled convictions in such prosecution, it expressly referred to two other cases: United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct. 589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), "where it was held that such a conviction [invalid under Gideon ] could not be considered by a court in sentencing a defendant after a subsequent conviction;" and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473 , 92 S.Ct. 1014 , 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972), "where the Court disallowed the use of the conviction to impeach the general credibility of the defendant." In my view, the question of whether uncounseled 1983Although the Court therein permitted the use of uncounseled convictions in such prosecution, it expressly referred to two other cases: United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 , 92 S.Ct. 589 , 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972), "where it was held that such a conviction [invalid under Gideon ] could not be considered by a court in sentencing a defendant after a subsequent conviction;" and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473 , 92 S.Ct. 1014 , 31 L.Ed.2d 374 (1972), "where the Court disallowed the use of the conviction to impeach the general credibility of the defendant." In my view, the question of whether uncounseled | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.