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 1998–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cat's Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans Through Department of Financegreen2 sentences2019Cat’s Meow, Inc., p. 13, 720 So.2d at 1196 . 2015When a challenged article, statute, or ordinance is amended or repealed to cure any alleged constitutional defects, a' reviewing court should consider two exceptions to the mootness doctrine to determine whether they should dismiss the case as moot: the voluntary cessation exception, under which the reviewing court should consider whether the defendant’s voluntary cessation of the alleged violation has mooted the case because the legislative body has eliminated the challenged provisions; and the collateral consequences exception, under which the reviewing court should consider the nature of th | 1 | 4 |
Felder v. Political Firm, L.L.C.green2 sentences2017See Felder v. Political Firm, LLC, 14-1266 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/24/15) , 170 So.3d 1022, 1027-28 . 2017Felder, 170 So.3d at 1028 (citing Cat’s Meow, Inc. v. City of New Orleans, Through Dept. of Finance, 98-0601 (La. 10/20/98), 720 So.2d 1186, 1196 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Environmental Action Network v. Environmental Qual.
neutral
2 sentences2017Notably, we have declined to extend the collateral consequences exception outside of the bounds discussed in Cat’s Meow, Inc., supra. See e.g., Louisiana Environmental Action Network v. Louisiana Dept. of Environmental Quality, 02-2377 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/26/03) , 857 So.2d 541, 544-45 . 2017Furthermore, the. collateral consequences exception “cannot apply where claimants have remedies available to pursue that can resolve the alleged harm.’’ Louisiana Environmental Action Network, 857 So.2d at 545 , . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Lane v. Williams
green
2 sentences2001However, in Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 , 102 S.Ct. 1322 , 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982), the court rejected a similar | (¡argument that the collateral consequences doctrine covers future harm caused by the mere presence of a parole violation on a person’s record. 2001However, in Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624 , 102 S.Ct. 1322 , 71 L.Ed.2d 508 (1982), the court rejected a similar | (¡argument that the collateral consequences doctrine covers future harm caused by the mere presence of a parole violation on a person’s record. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Carafas v. LaVallee
green
2 sentences1998Although this exception is most often used to enable review of expired criminal sentences, see, e.g., Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); State v. Smith, 96-1798 (La.10/21/97), 700 So.2d 493 , it has frequently been applied in the civil context. 13A WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3533.3 (2d ed.1984); 15 JAMES W. 1998Although this exception is most often used to enable review of expired criminal sentences, see, e.g., Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); State v. Smith, 96-1798 (La.10/21/97), 700 So.2d 493 , it has frequently been applied in the civil context. 13A WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3533.3 (2d ed.1984); 15 JAMES W. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence1998Although this exception is most often used to enable review of expired criminal sentences, see, e.g., Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 237-38 , 88 S.Ct. 1556 , 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968); State v. Smith, 96-1798 (La.10/21/97), 700 So.2d 493 , it has frequently been applied in the civil context. 13A WRIGHT, MILLER & COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3533.3 (2d ed.1984); 15 JAMES W. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.