67 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Jagreen2 sentences2001Children’s Code art. 1035(A); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (holding that the minimum standard of proof in termination of parental rights cases is clear and convincing evidence); State ex rel J.A., supra at 811. 2001Louisiana Child Code art. 1035(A); State ex rel J.A., supra; Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (holding that the minimum standard of proof in termination of parental rights cases is clear and convincing evidence.). | 5 | 10 |
Baggert v. Stategreen2 sentences2017See Baggert v. State, 350 So.2d 652 (1972) (citing Morrissey as establishing the minimum requirement of due process in revocation hearings); see also State v. Akers, 2014-1315 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/20/15) , 2015 WL 2452415 (unpub’d) (rejecting the defendant’s claim that district court erroneously allowed the State to establish violation of condition of-probation almost entirely on hearsay evidence because the .record established (1) the defendant admitted his behavior violated conditions of probation; and (2) defense counsel was permitted to cross-examine testifying officer, at revocation hearing) 1979As stated by this court in Baggert v. State, 350 So.2d 652, 655 (La.1977): "Morrissey established as a minimum requirement of due process in revocation hearings `the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation).' When the Parole Board has before it allegations of criminal conduct, and it has not been specifically found that confrontation and cross-examination would expose a witness to a significant risk of harm, it is decidedly inappropriate to receive unassailable written reports as the sole evi | 2 | 2 |
Vance v. Bradleygreen2 sentences1996See Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 , 99 S.Ct. 939 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979); Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). 1996See Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 , 99 S.Ct. 939 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979); Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). | 2 | 2 |
Lewis v. Succession of Johnsongreen2 sentences2019A taxpayer, therefore, must also have the opportunity to receive written notice, as a minimum requirement, to ensure protection of the owner's property rights under the Fourteenth Amendment." 05-1192 at 12, 925 So. 2d at 1179 . 2019A taxpayer, therefore, must also have the opportunity to receive written notice, as a minimum requirement, to ensure protection of the owner's property rights under the Fourteenth Amendment." 05-1192 at 12, 925 So. 2d at 1179 . | 1 | 4 |
State, in Interest of Howardgreen2 sentences2000The court in In the Interest of Howard, 382 So.2d 194, 199-200 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1980), stated: Considering the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to the custody and control of their children, the adversary nature of abuse/neglect custody proceedings which involve charges of conduct which may give rise to criminal prosecution, the grievous nature of the loss which parents face through indefinite or prolonged separation from their child, and the imbalance of the power and ability of the state to present its side of the case as opposed to that of the parents, we hold that a minimum st 1985The Court’s opinion today in no way implies that the standards increasingly urged by informed public opinion and now widely followed by the States are other than enlightened and wise. [Citations omitted] In State v. Howard, supra, this Circuit held that: Considering the fundamental and constitutional right of parents to the custody and control of their children, the adversary nature of abuse/neglect custody proceedings which involve charges of conduct which may give rise to criminal prosecution, the grievous nature of the loss which parents face through indefinite or prolonged separation from | 1 | 3 |
Landry v. Baton Rouge Police Departmentgreen1 sentence2014See Landry v. Baton Rouge Dept., 08- 2289, p. 11 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/8/09), 17 So.3d 991, 998 . | 1 | 1 |
Mulvey v. Department of Policegreen1 sentence2014Id.; Mulvey, 12-1041, p. 10, 108 So.3d at 897 (“Therefore, we find that the investigation by the appointing authority of Officer Mulvey was non-compliant with the minimum standards set forth in La.Rev.Stat. 40:2531(B)(7), and the discipline imposed against him is rendered an absolute nullity.”). | 1 | 1 |
Berthelot v. Travelers Insurancegreen1 sentence1999Additionally, the district court, which classified the plaintiffs’ claim as “ludicrous,” opined that while there is a minimum State standard under Louisiana law with respect to mammograms, as contained in LSA-R.S. 22:215.11, “[njothing in this statute gives rise to or can be said to imply any kind of obligation to tell anyone about what the minimum requirements of state law coverage are.” Berthelot, et al. v. Travelers Insurance 4Co., et al., 973 F.Supp. 596, 599 (E.D.La.1997). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shoemakergreen1 sentence1999See, e.g., State v. Shoemaker, 569 So.2d 169 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990), writ denied 572 So.2d 73 (1991); State v. Bradley, 504 So.2d 1144 (La.App. 5 Cir.1987); State v. Michiels, 495 So.2d 409 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied 498 So.2d 15 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Shoemakergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Arkansas v. Sandersred | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Santosky v. Kramer
green
2 sentences2012Code art. 1035(A); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (holding that the minimum standard of proof in termination of parental rights cases is clear and convincing evidence). 15Thus, the State has to prove one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. 2012Code art. 1035(A); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (holding that the minimum standard of proof in termination of parental rights cases is clear and convincing evidence). 15Thus, the State has to prove one of the statutory grounds for termination of parental rights by clear and convincing evidence. | 24 | 2000–2012 |
Banks v. Indus. Roofing & Sheet Metal
green
2 sentences2018In Banks , 696 So.2d at 557 , the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the minimum standard that an employer must meet in order to discharge its burden of proving job availability: (1) the existence of a suitable job within claimant's physical capabilities and within claimant's or the employer's community or reasonable geographic region; (2) the amount of wages that an employee with claimant's experience and training can be expected to earn in that job; and (3) an actual position available for that particular job at the time that the *1076 claimant received notification of the job's existence. 2004In Banks , the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth a minimum standard that an employer must meet in order to defeat an employee's claim for SEB by proving job availability. 96-2840, pp. 10-11, 696 So.2d at 557 . | 9 | 1997–2018 |
Jackson v. Virginia
red
2 sentences2011This is a broader standard than the minimum standard mandated by the federal constitution and memorialized in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [3] See also, State in the Interest of D.R., 10-0405, pp. 12-13, 50 So.3d at 934 . 2011This is a broader standard than the minimum standard mandated by the federal constitution and memorialized in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [3] See also, State in the Interest of D.R., 10-0405, pp. 12-13, 50 So.3d at 934 . | 4 | 2011–2011 |
State ex rel. D.R.
green
2 sentences2011This is a broader standard than the minimum standard mandated by the federal constitution and memorialized in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , *843 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [4] See State in the Interest of D.R., 10-0405, pp. 12-13 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/13/10) , 50 So.3d 927, 934 . 2011This is a broader standard than the minimum standard mandated by the federal constitution and memorialized in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). [3] See also, State in the Interest of D.R., 10-0405, pp. 12-13, 50 So.3d at 934 . | 4 | 2011–2011 |
Irvin v. Dowd
green
2 sentences1996The record of the voir dire reveals that the qualifications possessed by each juror selected in this case met or exceeded the minimum requirement that “the juror can lay aside |9his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1643 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). 1996The record of the voir dire reveals that the qualifications possessed by each juror selected in this case met or exceeded the minimum requirement that “the juror can lay aside |9his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 , 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1643 , 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961). | 3 | 1982–1996 |
Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia
green
2 sentences1996See Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 , 99 S.Ct. 939 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979); Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). 1996See Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93 , 99 S.Ct. 939 , 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979); Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307 , 96 S.Ct. 2562 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976). | 2 | 1996–1996 |
Kraaz v. La Quinta Motor Inns, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 1053 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Vaughan v. Vaughan
green
1 sentence2018App. 4th Cir. 1982) (observing that the obligor-spouse's "allegation of payment was the issue before the Trial Court"). 13 *548 Jurisprudential Standard for Establishing Entitlement to a Credit Ms. Dickerson contends that the minimum standard for establishing entitlement to a credit is set forth in two cases- Vaughan , supra , and Singleton, supra. Both of the cited cases, like this case, involved a former spouse's motion to make executory past due support payments under La. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Singleton v. Singleton
green
1 sentence2018App. 4th Cir. 1982) (observing that the obligor-spouse's "allegation of payment was the issue before the Trial Court"). 13 *548 Jurisprudential Standard for Establishing Entitlement to a Credit Ms. Dickerson contends that the minimum standard for establishing entitlement to a credit is set forth in two cases- Vaughan , supra , and Singleton, supra. Both of the cited cases, like this case, involved a former spouse's motion to make executory past due support payments under La. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
McQuiggin v. Perkins
green
2 sentences2015On remand of the case from • the court of appeal to consider the merits of respondent’s claim No. 11, the district court is directed to apply the minimum standard for relief’ as set forth by this Court in State v. Pierre, 13-0873, pp. 9-10 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, 409 , and require respondent to show that in light of new evidence, “ ‘no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. —, —, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 , 115 S.Ct. 851, 868 , 130 L.Ed 2015On remand of the case from • the court of appeal to consider the merits of respondent’s claim No. 11, the district court is directed to apply the minimum standard for relief’ as set forth by this Court in State v. Pierre, 13-0873, pp. 9-10 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, 409 , and require respondent to show that in light of new evidence, “ ‘no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. —, —, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 , 115 S.Ct. 851, 868 , 130 L.Ed | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Schlup v. Delo
red
2 sentences2015On remand of the case from • the court of appeal to consider the merits of respondent’s claim No. 11, the district court is directed to apply the minimum standard for relief’ as set forth by this Court in State v. Pierre, 13-0873, pp. 9-10 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, 409 , and require respondent to show that in light of new evidence, “ ‘no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. —, —, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 , 115 S.Ct. 851, 868 , 130 L.Ed 2015On remand of the case from • the court of appeal to consider the merits of respondent’s claim No. 11, the district court is directed to apply the minimum standard for relief’ as set forth by this Court in State v. Pierre, 13-0873, pp. 9-10 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, 409 , and require respondent to show that in light of new evidence, “ ‘no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. —, —, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 , 115 S.Ct. 851, 868 , 130 L.Ed | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Pierre
green
2 sentences2015On remand of the case from • the court of appeal to consider the merits of respondent’s claim No. 11, the district court is directed to apply the minimum standard for relief’ as set forth by this Court in State v. Pierre, 13-0873, pp. 9-10 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, 409 , and require respondent to show that in light of new evidence, “ ‘no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. —, —, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 , 115 S.Ct. 851, 868 , 130 L.Ed 2015On remand of the case from • the court of appeal to consider the merits of respondent’s claim No. 11, the district court is directed to apply the minimum standard for relief’ as set forth by this Court in State v. Pierre, 13-0873, pp. 9-10 (La. 10/15/13), 125 So.3d 403, 409 , and require respondent to show that in light of new evidence, “ ‘no juror, acting reasonably, would have voted to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” Id. (quoting McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. —, —, 133 S.Ct. 1924, 1928 , 185 L.Ed.2d 1019 (2013); Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 329 , 115 S.Ct. 851, 868 , 130 L.Ed | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Doucet v. State Farm Insurance
neutral
1 sentence2012Johnson v. Farm Bureau, 2011-0476 (La.5/6/11), 60 So.3d 607, 608 , see also Doucet v. State Farm, 1999-663 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/30/99) , 748 So.2d 1228 (wherein the trial court found, and the appellate court affirmed, that State Farm did not properly cancel an insured’s coverage because it did not meet the minimum requirement to mail the notice to the named insured at the insured’s address, but instead mailed the notice to her fiance. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Johnson v. Louisiana Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2012Johnson v. Farm Bureau, 2011-0476 (La.5/6/11), 60 So.3d 607, 608 , see also Doucet v. State Farm, 1999-663 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/30/99) , 748 So.2d 1228 (wherein the trial court found, and the appellate court affirmed, that State Farm did not properly cancel an insured’s coverage because it did not meet the minimum requirement to mail the notice to the named insured at the insured’s address, but instead mailed the notice to her fiance. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State Ex Rel. Cjk
green
1 sentence2008C.J.K., 00-2375, p. 8 (La.11/28/00), 774 So.2d 107 , 113. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Keel
green
1 sentence2007However, as recognized by the supreme court in Wal-Mart v. Keel, 01-3013 (La.4/3/02), 817 So.2d 1 , there is an important distinction for purposes of LSA-R.S. 23:1225(C)(1)(b) between old age benefits and benefits intended to replace wages lost as the result of injury: While we agree that preventing duplication of benefits is a legitimate state goal, we are convinced that La.Rev.Stat. 23:1225(C)(1)(b) does not meet even the minimum test of bearing a rational relationship to that goal for the following reasons. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Baker v. Kenney
neutral
1 sentence2004See also, the two fourth circuit cases cited in Savana, supra ; Baker v. Kenney, 99-2950 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/3/00), 767 So.2d 711 , writ denied, 2000-2153 (La.10/13/00), 771 So.2d 650 and Gambino v. Lamulle, 97-2798 (La.App. 4th Cir.6/10/98), 715 So.2d 574 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Baker v. Kenney
neutral
1 sentence2004See also, the two fourth circuit cases cited in Savana, supra ; Baker v. Kenney, 99-2950 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/3/00), 767 So.2d 711 , writ denied, 2000-2153 (La.10/13/00), 771 So.2d 650 and Gambino v. Lamulle, 97-2798 (La.App. 4th Cir.6/10/98), 715 So.2d 574 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gambino v. Lamulle
green
1 sentence2004See also, the two fourth circuit cases cited in Savana, supra ; Baker v. Kenney, 99-2950 (La.App. 4th Cir.5/3/00), 767 So.2d 711 , writ denied, 2000-2153 (La.10/13/00), 771 So.2d 650 and Gambino v. Lamulle, 97-2798 (La.App. 4th Cir.6/10/98), 715 So.2d 574 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Bradley green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Ponthier v. City of New Orleans
green
1 sentence1999See, e.g., State v. Shoemaker, 569 So.2d 169 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990), writ denied 572 So.2d 73 (1991); State v. Bradley, 504 So.2d 1144 (La.App. 5 Cir.1987); State v. Michiels, 495 So.2d 409 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied 498 So.2d 15 (1986). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Michiels
neutral
1 sentence1999See, e.g., State v. Shoemaker, 569 So.2d 169 (La.App. 1 Cir.1990), writ denied 572 So.2d 73 (1991); State v. Bradley, 504 So.2d 1144 (La.App. 5 Cir.1987); State v. Michiels, 495 So.2d 409 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied 498 So.2d 15 (1986). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| State v. Eggerson green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Cook v. Matherne green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. David green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Chambers v. Maroney green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Johns v. Smyth green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Ronnie E. Matthews v. United States of America, Luther P. Mitchell v. United States green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Boykin v. Alabama green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| State Ex Rel. Jackson v. Henderson green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Johnson v. Lowrey neutral | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.