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 1957–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Todd v. STATE, THROUGH DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICESgreen1 sentence2022See Todd v. State, through Dept. of Social Services, 1993-3090, p. 16 (La. 9/9/97), 699 So.2d 35, 43 . | 1 | 1 |
Succession of Wetmoregreen1 sentence1995See generally Succession of Wetmore, 422 So.2d 726, 727-28 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), writ denied, 429 So.2d 133 (La.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Holmes v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Co.green1 sentence1995See generally Succession of Wetmore, 422 So.2d 726, 727-28 (La.App. 4th Cir.1982), writ denied, 429 So.2d 133 (La.1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Serou v. Touro Infirmary
green
1 sentence2022App. 4 Cir. 4/13/16), 191 So.3d 1090, 1096 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State ex rel. B.R.C.
neutral
1 sentence2017Following this hearing and decision by the trial court, we order the ROffice of the Clerk of Court for the Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of Lafayette, to supplement the record in this appeal, in duplicate, with the transcript of the hearing, any evidence submitted at that hearing, and any pleadings- filed and the judgment rendered subsequent to this remand. ' As this court did in B.R.C., 192 So.3d 897 , since this court cannot rule on appellant’s counsel’s arguments without the taking of evidence, we hereby order a limited remand of this case for the trial court to hold a contradic | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Floyd
green
1 sentence2009However, despite the State’s exhibits at trial, this Court cannot rule on the admissibility of the evidence as a matter of first impression. | fiThe Louisiana Supreme Court, in State v. Floyd, 07-0216 (La.10/5/07), 965 So.2d 865 , set forth the procedure to follow where a reviewing court cannot consider the merits of a defendant’s suppression claim because there was no ruling by the trial court on the admissibility. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences1957State v. Davis, 208 La. 954 , 23 So.2d 801 ; State v. Mattio, 212 La. 284 , 31 So.2d 801 ; State v. Matassa, supra. Bill of Exception No. 2 is without merit. 1957State v. Davis, 208 La. 954 , 23 So.2d 801 ; State v. Mattio, 212 La. 284 , 31 So.2d 801 ; State v. Matassa, supra. Bill of Exception No. 2 is without merit. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Mattio
green
2 sentences1957State v. Davis, 208 La. 954 , 23 So.2d 801 ; State v. Mattio, 212 La. 284 , 31 So.2d 801 ; State v. Matassa, supra. Bill of Exception No. 2 is without merit. 1957State v. Davis, 208 La. 954 , 23 So.2d 801 ; State v. Mattio, 212 La. 284 , 31 So.2d 801 ; State v. Matassa, supra. Bill of Exception No. 2 is without merit. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Matassa
neutral
2 sentences1957State v. Matassa, 222 La. 363 , 62 So.2d 609 ; State v. Di Vincenti, 225 La. 689 , 73 So.2d 806 ; State v. Palmer, supra. This Court cannot rule upon the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case where there is some evidence adduced, no matter how little, upon which a verdict can be predicated, and the question of its sufficiency is exclusively one for determination by the jury. 1957State v. Matassa, 222 La. 363 , 62 So.2d 609 ; State v. Di Vincenti, 225 La. 689 , 73 So.2d 806 ; State v. Palmer, supra. This Court cannot rule upon the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case where there is some evidence adduced, no matter how little, upon which a verdict can be predicated, and the question of its sufficiency is exclusively one for determination by the jury. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
State v. Di Vincenti
green
2 sentences1957State v. Matassa, 222 La. 363 , 62 So.2d 609 ; State v. Di Vincenti, 225 La. 689 , 73 So.2d 806 ; State v. Palmer, supra. This Court cannot rule upon the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case where there is some evidence adduced, no matter how little, upon which a verdict can be predicated, and the question of its sufficiency is exclusively one for determination by the jury. 1957State v. Matassa, 222 La. 363 , 62 So.2d 609 ; State v. Di Vincenti, 225 La. 689 , 73 So.2d 806 ; State v. Palmer, supra. This Court cannot rule upon the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case where there is some evidence adduced, no matter how little, upon which a verdict can be predicated, and the question of its sufficiency is exclusively one for determination by the jury. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.