6 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2002 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 |
|---|---|---|
Allen v. State Bd. of Dentistrygreen1 sentence1992The new committee may, at its discretion, permit the recall of any witnesses if it deems this necessary to pass on their credibility." Allen v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry, 543 So.2d 908 at p. 917 (La.1989) (emphasis added) On May 22, 1990, the committee issued an administrative order informing Dr. Allen of the charges and specifications the committee found to be still viable and set *241 the rehearing date for August 4, 1990. [2] On July 5, 1990, the committee issued an additional administrative order correcting a clerical error [3] and finding that Dr. Allen's objection to the composi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen
green
1 sentence2002FACTS The facts of Mr. Allen's claim for compensation and subsequent forfeiture of compensation are set forth in this court's previous opinion in this matter, Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen, 33,020 (La.App.2d Cir.5/10/00), 759 So.2d 1066 , writ granted, 00-1520 (La.9/15/00), 767 So.2d 699 , order recalled, 00-1520 (La.1/17/01), 777 So.2d 472 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen
green
1 sentence2002FACTS The facts of Mr. Allen's claim for compensation and subsequent forfeiture of compensation are set forth in this court's previous opinion in this matter, Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen, 33,020 (La.App.2d Cir.5/10/00), 759 So.2d 1066 , writ granted, 00-1520 (La.9/15/00), 767 So.2d 699 , order recalled, 00-1520 (La.1/17/01), 777 So.2d 472 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Labove v. Raftery
green
1 sentence2002FACTS The facts of Mr. Allen's claim for compensation and subsequent forfeiture of compensation are set forth in this court's previous opinion in this matter, Yarnell Ice Cream Co. v. Allen, 33,020 (La.App.2d Cir.5/10/00), 759 So.2d 1066 , writ granted, 00-1520 (La.9/15/00), 767 So.2d 699 , order recalled, 00-1520 (La.1/17/01), 777 So.2d 472 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Crosby
green
1 sentence2001Additionally, Mr. Allen's plea was not entered under State v. Crosby, 338 So.2d 584 (La.1976), which permits a defendant to enter a plea of guilty while reserving the right to seek appellate review of pretrial rulings. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Nicholson
green
1 sentence2001This court has discussed the Allen issue: In [ State v. ] Nicholson, 315 So.2d 639 [(La.1975)], the supreme court set limits to the instructions that a trial judge can give to a jury after the jury announces it cannot reach a verdict. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
BECKER & ASSOCIATES., INC. v. Lou-Ark Equip. Rent. Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence1984Art. 1841, [1] Becker and Assoc., Inc. v. Lou-Ark Equipment Rental Co., 331 So.2d 474 (La.1976). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Von Langendorff v. Riordan
green
2 sentences1983Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524 , 163 A.2d 100 (1960); 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arbitration and Award, § 186, p. 657." Allen's claim of evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator is based on a prior professional relationship between the arbitrator, who is an attorney, and the attorney for A & W. 1983Von Langendorff v. Riordan, 147 Conn. 524 , 163 A.2d 100 (1960); 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arbitration and Award, § 186, p. 657." Allen's claim of evident partiality on the part of the arbitrator is based on a prior professional relationship between the arbitrator, who is an attorney, and the attorney for A & W. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.