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.
6 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Erven
neutral
2 sentences2014In State v. Erven, 36,382 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/23/02), 830 So.2d 368 , the court held that at the appearance hearing to answer the state’s petition, the court is required, pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 855, to first determine if the juvenile is capable of understanding his/her rights, and if so, to advise the child of his/her rights, including the nature of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations of the petition, the right to an adjudication hearing, the right to appointed counsel, and the right against self-incrimination. 2013In State v. Erven, 36,332 (La.App. 2 Cir. 10/23/02), 830 So.2d 368 , the court held that at the appearance hearing to answer the state’s petition, the court is required, pursuant to La.Ch.Code art. 855, to first determine if the juvenile is capable of understanding his/her rights, and if so, to advise the child of his/her rights, including the nature of the proceedings, the nature of the allegations of the petition, the right to an adjudication hearing, the right to appointed counsel, and the right against self-incrimination. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
State in Interest of JG
green
1 sentence2014In State in Interest of J.G., 94-194 (La.App. 5 Cir. 7/26/94) , 641 So.2d 633 , the court applied the harmless error analysis when the trial court failed [ iato advise the juvenile of his rights under art. 855. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In re LeBlanc
green
1 sentence2008Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board cited In re: LeBlanc, 97-1056 (La.9/19/97), 699 So.2d 378 , and In re: Schnyder, 05-1463 (La.1/13/06), 918 So.2d 455 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In re Schnyder
neutral
1 sentence2008Turning to the issue of an appropriate sanction, the board cited In re: LeBlanc, 97-1056 (La.9/19/97), 699 So.2d 378 , and In re: Schnyder, 05-1463 (La.1/13/06), 918 So.2d 455 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Jones v. Decuers
green
2 sentences2003Accordingly, the judgment cannot now be nullified for "vices of form." [Emphasis added.] Id., 320 So.2d at 350 . 2003Accordingly, the judgment cannot now be nullified for "vices of form." [Emphasis added.] Id., 320 So.2d at 350 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hampson v. Hampson
neutral
1 sentence1981Hampson v. Hampson, 271 So.2d 898 (La.App. 2nd Cir. 1972). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Lockwood
neutral
1 sentence1980To the Administrator’s other argument, that the intent of Section 1551 is to prohibit retroactive tax rate increases and not to prohibit adjustments that might cause a tax rate increase on current or future tax rates, we say that the case of Sears, Roebuck & Company v. Lockwood Administrator, Louisiana Office of Employment Security, 378 So.2d 1010 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), has refuted that argument and has ruled otherwise. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.