8 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1909–2020 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. Simmonsgreen2 sentences2020Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 88 , 124 S. Ct. 1379 , 13879 158 L.Ed.2d 209 ( 2004); State v. Simmons, 2005- 1462 ( La. 3/ 17/ 06), 924 So. 2d 137 , 138 per curiam). 2010Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 88 , 124 S.Ct. 1379, 1387 , 158 L.Ed.2d 209 (2004); State v. Simmons, 05-1462, pp. 1-2 (La.3/17/06), 924 So.2d 137, 138 (per curiam). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Morris
green
2 sentences1954State v. Morris, 222 La. 480 , 62 So.2d 649 . 1954State v. Morris, 222 La. 480 , 62 So.2d 649 . | 3 | 1954–1954 |
Iowa v. Tovar
green
2 sentences2020Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 88 , 124 S. Ct. 1379 , 13879 158 L.Ed.2d 209 ( 2004); State v. Simmons, 2005- 1462 ( La. 3/ 17/ 06), 924 So. 2d 137 , 138 per curiam). 2020Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 88 , 124 S. Ct. 1379 , 13879 158 L.Ed.2d 209 ( 2004); State v. Simmons, 2005- 1462 ( La. 3/ 17/ 06), 924 So. 2d 137 , 138 per curiam). | 2 | 2010–2020 |
Melerine v. Maryland Casualty Co.
neutral
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] It should be noted, however, that the plaintiff's employment record at A & G cafeteria was marred by several firings and rehirings, predicated upon absenteeism, insubordination, and use of obscene language within the range of hearing of customers. [2] While these two items of evidence could probably have been excluded by objection, they were admitted into evidence without the objection of counsel and we are therefore required to consider them as part of the evidence. [3] See Vezinat v. Marix, La.App., 217 So.2d 416 (1968); Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 99 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Russell v. Bemis Bros. Bag Co.
neutral
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] It should be noted, however, that the plaintiff's employment record at A & G cafeteria was marred by several firings and rehirings, predicated upon absenteeism, insubordination, and use of obscene language within the range of hearing of customers. [2] While these two items of evidence could probably have been excluded by objection, they were admitted into evidence without the objection of counsel and we are therefore required to consider them as part of the evidence. [3] See Vezinat v. Marix, La.App., 217 So.2d 416 (1968); Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 99 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Etienne v. Algernon Blair, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] It should be noted, however, that the plaintiff's employment record at A & G cafeteria was marred by several firings and rehirings, predicated upon absenteeism, insubordination, and use of obscene language within the range of hearing of customers. [2] While these two items of evidence could probably have been excluded by objection, they were admitted into evidence without the objection of counsel and we are therefore required to consider them as part of the evidence. [3] See Vezinat v. Marix, La.App., 217 So.2d 416 (1968); Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 99 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Vezinat v. Marix
green
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] It should be noted, however, that the plaintiff's employment record at A & G cafeteria was marred by several firings and rehirings, predicated upon absenteeism, insubordination, and use of obscene language within the range of hearing of customers. [2] While these two items of evidence could probably have been excluded by objection, they were admitted into evidence without the objection of counsel and we are therefore required to consider them as part of the evidence. [3] See Vezinat v. Marix, La.App., 217 So.2d 416 (1968); Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 99 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Miller v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.
green
1 sentence1971NOTES [1] It should be noted, however, that the plaintiff's employment record at A & G cafeteria was marred by several firings and rehirings, predicated upon absenteeism, insubordination, and use of obscene language within the range of hearing of customers. [2] While these two items of evidence could probably have been excluded by objection, they were admitted into evidence without the objection of counsel and we are therefore required to consider them as part of the evidence. [3] See Vezinat v. Marix, La.App., 217 So.2d 416 (1968); Miller v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., La.App., 99 | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Barrilleaux
neutral
1 sentence1971Ray McDermott and Company, La.App., 165 So.2d 621 (1964). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Guin
green
2 sentences1956It was improper for counsel to interrogate the prospective jurors concerning their reactions as to evidence which might be received at the trial. * * * Article 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now LSA-R.S. 15 :- 357) states that the voir dire examination of jurors is designed to ascertain their qualifications to try the case and that ‘the examination shall be limited to that purpose.’ The range of the inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. * * * ” State v. Page, 173 La. 279 , 136 So. 609 and State v. Guin, 212 La. 475 , 32 So.2d 895 , relied on by defense counsel, are 1956It was improper for counsel to interrogate the prospective jurors concerning their reactions as to evidence which might be received at the trial. * * * Article 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now LSA-R.S. 15 :- 357) states that the voir dire examination of jurors is designed to ascertain their qualifications to try the case and that ‘the examination shall be limited to that purpose.’ The range of the inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. * * * ” State v. Page, 173 La. 279 , 136 So. 609 and State v. Guin, 212 La. 475 , 32 So.2d 895 , relied on by defense counsel, are | 1 | 1956–1956 |
State v. Page
neutral
2 sentences1956It was improper for counsel to interrogate the prospective jurors concerning their reactions as to evidence which might be received at the trial. * * * Article 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now LSA-R.S. 15 :- 357) states that the voir dire examination of jurors is designed to ascertain their qualifications to try the case and that ‘the examination shall be limited to that purpose.’ The range of the inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. * * * ” State v. Page, 173 La. 279 , 136 So. 609 and State v. Guin, 212 La. 475 , 32 So.2d 895 , relied on by defense counsel, are 1956It was improper for counsel to interrogate the prospective jurors concerning their reactions as to evidence which might be received at the trial. * * * Article 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now LSA-R.S. 15 :- 357) states that the voir dire examination of jurors is designed to ascertain their qualifications to try the case and that ‘the examination shall be limited to that purpose.’ The range of the inquiry is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. * * * ” State v. Page, 173 La. 279 , 136 So. 609 and State v. Guin, 212 La. 475 , 32 So.2d 895 , relied on by defense counsel, are | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Laycock v. Bird
green
1 sentence1909Laycock v. Byrd, 13 La. | 1 | 1909–1909 |
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.