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.
7 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2024 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tannehill v. Tannehillgreen2 sentences2020However, the need to protect innocent children from those consequences, combined with the difficulty of proving paternity, resulted in strict application of the marital presumption.36 See, e.g., Tannehill v. Tannehill, 261 So.2d 619, 623 (La. 1972). 2020See T.D. v. M.M.M., 730 So.2d at 880; Tannehill, 261 So.2d at 622 (presumption of paternity did not arise when the child was born before the 180th day of the marriage, when the child was born more than 300 days after dissolution of the marriage or judgment of separation, or when the husband was so remote from the wife that cohabitation was physically impossible). 36 The marital presumption was also intended to recognize and protect biological fact by placing the presumption of paternity on the man most likely to be the biological father of a child and eliminating the need for case-by-case dete | 1 | 1 |
Td v. Mmmred1 sentence2020See T.D. v. M.M.M., 730 So.2d at 880; Tannehill, 261 So.2d at 622 (presumption of paternity did not arise when the child was born before the 180th day of the marriage, when the child was born more than 300 days after dissolution of the marriage or judgment of separation, or when the husband was so remote from the wife that cohabitation was physically impossible). 36 The marital presumption was also intended to recognize and protect biological fact by placing the presumption of paternity on the man most likely to be the biological father of a child and eliminating the need for case-by-case dete | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2024In support of this argument, the defendant relies on United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), wherein the Court held that the admission of a recorded statement given to police by the defendant’s wife violated the defendant’s right under the Confrontation Clause because the statement was hearsay, because it was testimonial in nature, and because his wife did not testify at trial due to the state’s marital privilege. 2024In support of this argument, the defendant relies on United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), wherein the Court held that the admission of a recorded statement given to police by the defendant’s wife violated the defendant’s right under the Confrontation Clause because the statement was hearsay, because it was testimonial in nature, and because his wife did not testify at trial due to the state’s marital privilege. | 6 | 2014–2024 |
Matter of Succession of Robins
green
1 sentence2020Succession of Robins, 349 So.2d at 279 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp.
green
1 sentence2014Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 189 , 107 S.Ct. 1714 , 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987); State v. Collins, 10-0757, p. 22 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/11/11), 65 So.3d 271, 286 . |12In support of this argument, the defendant relies on United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), wherein the Court held that the admission of a recorded statement given to police by the defendant’s wife violated the defendant’s right under the Confrontation Clause because the statement was hearsay, because it was testimonial in nature, and because his wife did | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Cruz v. New York
green
2 sentences2014Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 189 , 107 S.Ct. 1714 , 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987); State v. Collins, 10-0757, p. 22 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/11/11), 65 So.3d 271, 286 . |12In support of this argument, the defendant relies on United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), wherein the Court held that the admission of a recorded statement given to police by the defendant’s wife violated the defendant’s right under the Confrontation Clause because the statement was hearsay, because it was testimonial in nature, and because his wife did 2014Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 189 , 107 S.Ct. 1714 , 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987); State v. Collins, 10-0757, p. 22 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/11/11), 65 So.3d 271, 286 . |12In support of this argument, the defendant relies on United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), wherein the Court held that the admission of a recorded statement given to police by the defendant’s wife violated the defendant’s right under the Confrontation Clause because the statement was hearsay, because it was testimonial in nature, and because his wife did | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Collins
green
1 sentence2014Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, 189 , 107 S.Ct. 1714 , 95 L.Ed.2d 162 (1987); State v. Collins, 10-0757, p. 22 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/11/11), 65 So.3d 271, 286 . |12In support of this argument, the defendant relies on United States Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), wherein the Court held that the admission of a recorded statement given to police by the defendant’s wife violated the defendant’s right under the Confrontation Clause because the statement was hearsay, because it was testimonial in nature, and because his wife did | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.