9 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Hoffmangreen2 sentences2015However, Justice of the Peace Hoffman did not file his 2009 financial statement until October 19, 2010, after the Commission filed a Formal Charge against him. 2 In In re: Hoffman, 11-0417 (La.7/1/11), 66 So.3d 455 (“Hoffman I”), this court found that Justice of the Peace Hoffman failed to comply with the financial disclosure requirement of Rule XXXIX, thereby subjecting him to a civil monetary penalty. 2013Under those standards, we never found a willful and knowing violation of Rule XXXIX, but we warned that “such leniency or benefit of the doubt will not be extended now that the financial disclosure rule has been in effect for more than one year.” Hoffman, supra; Flaherty, supra; Thomas, supra. Accordingly, in the subsequent case of In re Threet, 11-0875 (La.10/25/11), 74 So.3d 679, 684 , we reasoned that “ ‘personal or professional gain’ is to be | ^interpreted broadly,” and that “the ‘gain’ can be anything from a desire not to disclose one’s personal assets to the public, to a desire not to t | 1 | 7 |
In Re Flahertygreen2 sentences2013Under those standards, we never found a willful and knowing violation of Rule XXXIX, but we warned that “such leniency or benefit of the doubt will not be extended now that the financial disclosure rule has been in effect for more than one year.” Hoffman, supra; Flaherty, supra; Thomas, supra. Accordingly, in the subsequent case of In re Threet, 11-0875 (La.10/25/11), 74 So.3d 679, 684 , we reasoned that “ ‘personal or professional gain’ is to be | ^interpreted broadly,” and that “the ‘gain’ can be anything from a desire not to disclose one’s personal assets to the public, to a desire not to t 2011See Flaherty, 11-0418, 66 So.3d 461 , supra. We reiterate emphatically, however, that in the future such leniency or benefit of the doubt will not be extended now that the financial disclosure rule has been in effect for more than one year. | 1 | 6 |
In Re Sanborngreen2 sentences2011As we explained in San-born, the financial disclosure rule is a newly adopted rule of this court, applicable to justices of the peace for the first time in 2010, and “there is little guidance regarding its implementation.” Sanborn, p. 6, 50 So.3d at 1282 . 2011As we noted in Sanborn, judges, as well as justices of the peace, are held to a high standard, and they are “often called upon to enforce deadlines on litigants before [their courts], and must likewise show respect for the deadlines this Court has imposed on all judges [and all justices of the peace] of this State, without exception.” Sanborn, pp. 6-7, 50 So.3d at 1283 . | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Thomas
green
2 sentences2013Under those standards, we never found a willful and knowing violation of Rule XXXIX, but we warned that “such leniency or benefit of the doubt will not be extended now that the financial disclosure rule has been in effect for more than one year.” Hoffman, supra; Flaherty, supra; Thomas, supra. Accordingly, in the subsequent case of In re Threet, 11-0875 (La.10/25/11), 74 So.3d 679, 684 , we reasoned that “ ‘personal or professional gain’ is to be | ^interpreted broadly,” and that “the ‘gain’ can be anything from a desire not to disclose one’s personal assets to the public, to a desire not to t 2011However, on August 23, 2011, following this Court’s opinions in In re Hoffman, 11-0417 (La.7/1/11), 66 So.3d 455 , In re Flaherty, 11-0418 (La.7/1/11), 66 So.3d 461 , and In re Thomas, 11-0572 (La.7/1/11), 66 So.3d 466 , the Commission filed an amended recommendation, recommending penalties be limited to $200.00, with no request for reimbursement of costs. | 5 | 2011–2013 |
In re Justice of the Peace Threet
neutral
2 sentences2015See In re: Threet, 12-1501 (La.12/4/12), 105 So.3d 676 ($2,500.00 penalty for second violation of the financial disclosure rule); In re: Myers, 12-1500 (La.12/4/12), 105 So.3d 679 ($1,500.00 penalty for second violation of the financial disclosure rule). 2015See In re: Threet, 12-1501 (La.12/4/12), 105 So.3d 676 ($2,500.00 penalty for second violation of the financial disclosure rule); In re: Myers, 12-1500 (La.12/4/12), 105 So.3d 679 ($1,500.00 penalty for second violation of the financial disclosure rule). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In re Justice of the Peace Myers
neutral
2 sentences2015See In re: Threet, 12-1501 (La.12/4/12), 105 So.3d 676 ($2,500.00 penalty for second violation of the financial disclosure rule); In re: Myers, 12-1500 (La.12/4/12), 105 So.3d 679 ($1,500.00 penalty for second violation of the financial disclosure rule). 2015See In re: Threet, 12-1501 (La.12/4/12), 105 So.3d 676 ($2,500.00 penalty for second violation of the financial disclosure rule); In re: Myers, 12-1500 (La.12/4/12), 105 So.3d 679 ($1,500.00 penalty for second violation of the financial disclosure rule). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
In Re Justice of the Peace Threet
green
1 sentence2013Under those standards, we never found a willful and knowing violation of Rule XXXIX, but we warned that “such leniency or benefit of the doubt will not be extended now that the financial disclosure rule has been in effect for more than one year.” Hoffman, supra; Flaherty, supra; Thomas, supra. Accordingly, in the subsequent case of In re Threet, 11-0875 (La.10/25/11), 74 So.3d 679, 684 , we reasoned that “ ‘personal or professional gain’ is to be | ^interpreted broadly,” and that “the ‘gain’ can be anything from a desire not to disclose one’s personal assets to the public, to a desire not to t | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Vella v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1976In Buckley v. Valeo, 421 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), the United States Supreme Court upheld the financial disclosure requirement of the Federal Election Campaign Act. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Buckley v. Valeo
green
2 sentences1976In Buckley v. Valeo, 421 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), the United States Supreme Court upheld the financial disclosure requirement of the Federal Election Campaign Act. 1976In Buckley v. Valeo, 421 U.S. 1 , 96 S.Ct. 612 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976), the United States Supreme Court upheld the financial disclosure requirement of the Federal Election Campaign Act. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.