combination factors in Louisiana

2009Id. at 1253 .

2009Id. at 1253 .

1995In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 409-14 , 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1370-1373 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), a case involving a white defendant, the United States Supreme Court held the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a prosecutor from using peremptory challenges to exclude otherwise qualified and unbiased persons from the petit jury solely by reason of their race, "a practice that forecloses a significant opportunity to participate in civic life." The Supreme Court further held that, while an individual juror does not have the right to sit on a particular petit jury, the juror possesses the right not to b

1995In Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 409-14 , 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1370-1373 , 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991), a case involving a white defendant, the United States Supreme Court held the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a prosecutor from using peremptory challenges to exclude otherwise qualified and unbiased persons from the petit jury solely by reason of their race, "a practice that forecloses a significant opportunity to participate in civic life." The Supreme Court further held that, while an individual juror does not have the right to sit on a particular petit jury, the juror possesses the right not to b

2024The three-part test requires consideration of all the factors in making that determination of whether the maximum sentence is warranted; “[t]his analysis is cumulative and focuses on a combination of these factors.” State v. Smith, 99-0606, pp. 17-18 (La. 7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 514 .

2012Baxley , 94-2982, p. 10, 656 So.2d at 980 ; Smith , 99-0606, pp. 17-18, 766 So.2d at 515-516 .

2019The DIBOLLS were wiling [sic] to have this Court consider their adoption of [G.L.D.] in order to keep these siblings together[.] Under the manifest error rule mandated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Rosell , 549 So.2d at 844 , we "may not set aside a trial court's ... finding of fact in the absence of 'manifest error' or unless it is 'clearly wrong[.]" Although we sympathize with G.L.D., as some considerations weigh in favor of keeping the siblings together, the facts of this particular case convince us that the combination of factors are overwhelmingly in favor of the adoptive parents and

2019The DIBOLLS were wiling [sic] to have this Court consider their adoption of [G.L.D.] in order to keep these siblings together[.] Under the manifest error rule mandated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Rosell , 549 So.2d at 844 , we "may not set aside a trial court's ... finding of fact in the absence of 'manifest error' or unless it is 'clearly wrong[.]" Although we sympathize with G.L.D., as some considerations weigh in favor of keeping the siblings together, the facts of this particular case convince us that the combination of factors are overwhelmingly in favor of the adoptive parents and

2013State v. Myers, 99-1803, p. 4 (La.4/11/00), 761 So.2d 498, 501 .

2005State v. Myers, 99-1803, p. 4 (La.4/11/00), 761 So.2d 498, 501 .

1993State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Gilmore, 522 So.2d 658 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988).

1992The combination of these factors establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. *59 State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Gilmore, 522 So.2d 658 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988).

1993State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Gilmore, 522 So.2d 658 (La.App. 5 Cir.1988).

1992The combination of these factors establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination. *59 State v. Collier, 553 So.2d 815 (La.1989); State v. Gilmore, 522 So.2d 658 (La.App. 5th Cir.1988).

2012Baxley , 94-2982, p. 10, 656 So.2d at 980 ; Smith , 99-0606, pp. 17-18, 766 So.2d at 515-516 .

2010State v. Givens, 99-3518 (La.1/17/01), 776 So.2d 443 .

2008In State v. Thomas, 02-471, p. 3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/30/02), 829 So.2d 1137, 1139-40 , this court stated: When reviewing a trial court's denial of a motion to suppress, the appellate court looks at the totality of the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.

2006We also distinguish Franklin v. Secretary of State, XXXX-XXXX (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/19/06), 942 So.2d 62 , insofar as the court found that the purported appeal bond "was no bond at all." [13] Louisiana Revised Statute 18:1432(A) reads as follows: If the trial judge in an action contesting an election determines that: (1) it is impossible to determine the result of election, or (2) the number of qualified voters who were denied the right to vote by the election officials was sufficient to change the result in the election, if they had been allowed to vote, or (3) the number of unqualified voters w

2005State v. Tilley, 99-0569, p. 4 (La.7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 12 , cert. denied, 532 U.S. 959 , 121 S.Ct. 1488 , 149 L.Ed.2d 375 (2001). h, The combination of factors needed to establish a prima facie ease are: (1) the defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable group; (2) the defendant must then show the challenge was peremptory rather than for cause; and (3) finally, the defendant must show circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor struck the venire member on account of race.

2005State v. Tilley, 99-0569, p. 4 (La.7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 12 , cert. denied, 532 U.S. 959 , 121 S.Ct. 1488 , 149 L.Ed.2d 375 (2001). h, The combination of factors needed to establish a prima facie ease are: (1) the defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable group; (2) the defendant must then show the challenge was peremptory rather than for cause; and (3) finally, the defendant must show circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor struck the venire member on account of race.

2005State v. Tilley, 99-0569, p. 4 (La.7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 12 , cert. denied, 532 U.S. 959 , 121 S.Ct. 1488 , 149 L.Ed.2d 375 (2001). h, The combination of factors needed to establish a prima facie ease are: (1) the defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable group; (2) the defendant must then show the challenge was peremptory rather than for cause; and (3) finally, the defendant must show circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor struck the venire member on account of race.

2005State v. Tilley, 99-0569, p. 4 (La.7/6/00), 767 So.2d 6, 12 , cert. denied, 532 U.S. 959 , 121 S.Ct. 1488 , 149 L.Ed.2d 375 (2001). h, The combination of factors needed to establish a prima facie ease are: (1) the defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor’s challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable group; (2) the defendant must then show the challenge was peremptory rather than for cause; and (3) finally, the defendant must show circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor struck the venire member on account of race.

2003Thus, when David filed to set this matter for trial on the merits and opposed OLOL's motion for continuance on the grounds the exception of prescription was pending in the appellate court, there was no need for David to attack the constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 9:5628. [12] The combination of factors encountered in the instant case distinguishes it from Mosing v. Domas, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 13-14 (La.10/15/02), 830 So.2d 967 , in which we disallowed a belated constitutional due process argument.

2002Considering this language, the Louisiana Supreme Court in Adkins v. Huckabay, 99-3605 (La.2/25/2000), 755 So.2d 206 , stated that a party contesting an election no longer must show that "but for" the irregularity he would have won the election.

2001See Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-95 , 106 S.Ct. at 1721-22 ; Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 358-59 , 111 S.Ct. at 1865-66 . *449 The combination of factors needed to establish a prima facie case are: (1) the defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor's challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable group; (2) the defendant must then show the challenge was peremptory rather than for cause; and (3) finally, the defendant must show circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor struck the venire person on account of being a member of that cognizable group.

2001See Batson, 476 U.S. at 93-95 , 106 S.Ct. at 1721-22 ; Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 358-59 , 111 S.Ct. at 1865-66 . *449 The combination of factors needed to establish a prima facie case are: (1) the defendant must demonstrate that the prosecutor's challenge was directed at a member of a cognizable group; (2) the defendant must then show the challenge was peremptory rather than for cause; and (3) finally, the defendant must show circumstances sufficient to raise an inference that the prosecutor struck the venire person on account of being a member of that cognizable group.

1999The combination of these factors, caused by Plaintiffs and Mr. Forwood’s deviation, increased the risk that they might suffer an injury. | ^Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Robinson, supra, which utilizes the Kern test, from the case sub judice.

1997The couple did, however, reconcile thereafter, and their divorce was annulled in September of 1994. [6] The trial court was obviously referring to the case of Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, 163 Ill.App.3d 149 , 114 Ill.Dec. 389 , 516 N.E.2d 544 Weslo Manufacturing. [7] It should be noted that the Hulsey's petition contains no allegation that the machine itself was defective, or that it operated in a manner inconsistent with the standards set by its manufacturer.

1997The couple did, however, reconcile thereafter, and their divorce was annulled in September of 1994. [6] The trial court was obviously referring to the case of Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, 163 Ill.App.3d 149 , 114 Ill.Dec. 389 , 516 N.E.2d 544 Weslo Manufacturing. [7] It should be noted that the Hulsey's petition contains no allegation that the machine itself was defective, or that it operated in a manner inconsistent with the standards set by its manufacturer.

1996Id.

1996The trial court considered the vulnerability and extreme youth of the victim as well as defendant's involvement in similar conduct in Terrebonne Parish. "[T]he sources of information from which a sentencing court may draw are extensive, and traditional rules of evidence are not bars to consideration of otherwise relevant information." State v. Douglas, 389 So.2d 1263 , 1267 n. 2 (La.1980). *538 In State v. Berry, 630 So.2d 1330, 1335 (La.App. 4 Cir.1993), the fourth circuit, citing State v. Bouie, 532 So.2d 791, 793 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988), stated, "we reiterated that a trial court may consider b