Supreme Court discussed standard in Louisiana

47 Louisiana opinions name it 1 courts 1968–2021 1 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Fink v. Bryantgreen la · 2001 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR The plaintiff-appellant, J.M.Y., asserts one assignment of error: The Court erred when it granted Defendant’s Exception of No Right of Action or Cause of Action. \| ¿DISCUSSION The supreme court discussed the standard of review of an exception of no cause of action in Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/29/01), 801 So.2d 346, 348-349 (citations omitted): The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition. 2008DISCUSSION The supreme court discussed the standard of review of an exception of no cause of action in Fink v. Bryant, 01-0987, pp. 3-4 (La.11/29/01), 801 So.2d 346, 348-349 (citations omitted): The function of the peremptory exception of no cause of action is to question whether the law extends a remedy to anyone under the factual allegations of the petition.	2	2
State v. Ruffingreen la · 1984 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002 2 sentences 2002In State v. Fisher, 97-1133, p. 8 (La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 1179, 1184 , the Supreme Court discussed the factors to evaluate when the police rely on a tip from a confidential informant: \|7While probable cause must be determined on the totality of the circumstances, an informant’s reliability, veracity and basis of knowledge are “all highly relevant.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ] (1983); State v. Ruffin, 448 So.2d 1274, 1278 (La.1984). 2002In State v. Thompson, 2001-0524, p. 6(La.App.4 Cir.1/2/02), 806 So.2d 150, 154 , this Court cited State v. Fisher, 97-1133, p. 8(La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 1179,1184 , a case in which the Supreme Court discussed the factors to evaluate when the police rely on a tip from a confidential informant: While probable cause must be determined on the totality of the circumstances, an informant’s reliability, veracity and basis of knowledge are “all highly relevant.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ](1983); State v. Ruffin, 448 So.2d 1274, 1278 (La.1984).	2	2
Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp.green la · 1993 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2000–2002 2 sentences 2002In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), the supreme court discussed the standard to be applied in the review of damage awards: The standard for appellate review of general damage awards is difficult to express and is necessarily non-specific, and the requirement of an articulated basis for disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification of a generous or stingy award. 2000In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), the supreme court discussed the standard an appellate court must apply when reviewing the award of general damages by a lower court: [T]he discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.	2	2
Dean v. Southmark Const.green la · 2004 · cited in 10 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2010 2 sentences 2010LAW AND DISCUSSION In Monceaux v. R & R Construction, Inc., 05-533, pp. 5-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/05), 919 So.2d 795, 798-801 , wits denied, 06-585 (La.5/5/06), 927 So.2d 325 , 06-636 (La.5/5/06), 927 So.2d 317 , we reviewed the standard of review and the claimant’s burden of proof in a workers’ compensation case: In Dean v. Southmark Construction, 03-1051, p. 7 (La.7/6/04), 879 So.2d 112, 117 , the supreme court discussed the standard of review in workers’ compensation cases: I.Jn worker’s compensation cases, the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the appellate court to the OWC’s 2010In Dean v. Southmark Construction, 03-1051, p. 7 (La.7/6/04), 879 So.2d 112, 117 , the supreme court discussed the standard of review in workers’ compensation cases: In worker’s compensation cases, the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the appellate court to the OWC’s findings of fact is the “manifest error-clearly wrong” standard.	1	10
Wimberly v. Gatchgreen la · 1994 · cited in 2 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2006–2010 2 sentences 2010The supreme court discussed the doctrine of contra non valentem in Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361 (La.04/11/94), 635 So.2d 206 . 2006The supreme court discussed the doctrine of contra non valentem in Wimberly v. Gatch, 93-2361, pp. 8-9 (La.4/11/94), 635 So.2d 206, 211 [citations omitted]: The courts created the doctrine of contra non valentem, as an exception to the general rules of prescription.	1	2
State v. Colliergreen la · 1989 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016In Collier, 553 So.2d at 821 (footnote omitted)(alteration in original), the supreme court discussed the standard for determining clear and reasonably specific legitimate reasons for its ruling, as follows: The trial judge did not reach the point of assessing the weight and credibility of the explanations, but merely accepted the explanations because they were racially neutral on their face.	1	1
Wright v. Louisiana Power & Lightgreen la · 2007 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012The trial court erred in granting Judgment in favor of Burns Builders and awarding him $96,686.10 representing sums it determined to be due under the contract. \|sDiscussion In Wright v. Louisiana Power & Light, 06-1181, p. 16 (La.3/9/07), 951 So.2d 1058, 1069 (quoting Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 00-78 (La.6/30/00), 764 So.2d 37 ), the supreme court discussed the standard for granting a motion for summary judgment, stating: A motion for summary judgment will be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if a	1	1
State v. Trahangreen la · 1983 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011	1	1
Boudreaux v. American Insurance Companygreen la · 1972 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005	1	1
State v. Brandgreen la · 1988 · cited in 1 Louisiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (46)

Case	Cited	Years
Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite green la · 1994 2 sentences 2010Brown v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, Inc., 96-2705 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/7/97) , 704 So.2d 8, 10 , (citing Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698, pp. 5-6 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 706, 710 ). 2010Brown v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, Inc., 96-2705 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/7/97) , 704 So.2d 8, 10 , (citing Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698, pp. 5-6 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 706, 710 ).	8	2005–2010
Brown v. Coastal Const. & Engineering, Inc. green lactapp · 1997 2 sentences 2010Brown v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, Inc., 96-2705 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/7/97) , 704 So.2d 8, 10 , (citing Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698, pp. 5-6 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 706, 710 ). 2010Brown v. Coastal Construction & Engineering, Inc., 96-2705 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/7/97) , 704 So.2d 8, 10 , (citing Alexander v. Pellerin Marble & Granite, 93-1698, pp. 5-6 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 706, 710 ).	8	2005–2010
State v. Abercrumbia green la · 1982 2 sentences 2008State v. Thompson, 2002-0333 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330 ; State v. Washington, 414 So.2d 313 (La.1982); State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982). 2007State v. Thompson, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330 ; State v. Washington, 414 So.2d 313 (La.1982); State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982).	4	2007–2008
State v. Washington green la · 1982 2 sentences 2008State v. Thompson, 2002-0333 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330 ; State v. Washington, 414 So.2d 313 (La.1982); State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982). 2007State v. Thompson, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330 ; State v. Washington, 414 So.2d 313 (La.1982); State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982).	4	2007–2008
State v. Williams green la · 2004 2 sentences 2008The supreme court discussed the standard applicable to excessive sentencing claims in State v. Williams, 03-3514, p. 14 (La.12/13/04), 893 So.2d 7, 16-17 , as follows: The trial judge is given a wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by him should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of his discretion. 2007The supreme court discussed the standard applicable to excessive sentencing claims in State v. Williams, 03-3514, p. 14 (La.12/13/04), 893 So.2d 7, 16-17 , as follows: The trial judge is given a wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within the statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by him should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of his discretion.	4	2007–2008
State v. Thompson green la · 2003 2 sentences 2008State v. Thompson, 2002-0333 (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330 ; State v. Washington, 414 So.2d 313 (La.1982); State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982). 2007State v. Thompson, XXXX-XXXX (La.4/9/03), 842 So.2d 330 ; State v. Washington, 414 So.2d 313 (La.1982); State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982).	4	2007–2008
State v. Robertson green la · 1994 2 sentences 2015State v. Cross, 93-1189, p. 7 (La.6/30/95), 658 So.2d 683, 686 ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 4 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 1278, 1281 .... 2013State v. Cross, 93-1189, p. 7 (La.6/30/95), 658 So.2d 683 , \|13686; State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 4 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 1278, 1281 ....	2	2013–2015
State v. Cross green la · 1995 2 sentences 2015State v. Cross, 93-1189, p. 7 (La.6/30/95), 658 So.2d 683, 686 ; State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 4 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 1278, 1281 .... 2013State v. Cross, 93-1189, p. 7 (La.6/30/95), 658 So.2d 683 , \|13686; State v. Robertson, 92-2660, p. 4 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 1278, 1281 ....	2	2013–2015
State v. Dunn green la · 2008 2 sentences 2015In State v. Scott, 04-1312, pp. 16-17 (La.1/19/06), 921 So.2d 904, 921 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 858 , 127 S.Ct. 137 , 166 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn, 07-878 (La.1/25/08), 974 So.2d 658 , the supreme court discussed the standard for reviewing the denial of challenges for cause: A trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and its rulings will be reversed only when a review Of the voir dire record as a whole reveals an abuse of discretion. 2013In State v. Scott, 04-1312, pp. 16-17 (La.1/19/06), 921 So.2d 904, 921 , cert, denied, 549 U.S. 858 , 127 S.Ct. 137 , 166 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn, 07-878 (La.1/25/08), 974 So.2d 658 , the supreme court discussed the standard for reviewing the denial of challenges for cause: A trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and its rulings will be reversed only when a review of the voir dire record as a whole reveals an abuse of discretion.	2	2013–2015
State v. Scott green la · 2006 2 sentences 2015In State v. Scott, 04-1312, pp. 16-17 (La.1/19/06), 921 So.2d 904, 921 , cert. denied, 549 U.S. 858 , 127 S.Ct. 137 , 166 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn, 07-878 (La.1/25/08), 974 So.2d 658 , the supreme court discussed the standard for reviewing the denial of challenges for cause: A trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and its rulings will be reversed only when a review Of the voir dire record as a whole reveals an abuse of discretion. 2013In State v. Scott, 04-1312, pp. 16-17 (La.1/19/06), 921 So.2d 904, 921 , cert, denied, 549 U.S. 858 , 127 S.Ct. 137 , 166 L.Ed.2d 100 (2006), overruled on other grounds by State v. Dunn, 07-878 (La.1/25/08), 974 So.2d 658 , the supreme court discussed the standard for reviewing the denial of challenges for cause: A trial court is vested with broad discretion in ruling on challenges for cause, and its rulings will be reversed only when a review of the voir dire record as a whole reveals an abuse of discretion.	2	2013–2015
Monceaux v. R & R CONST., INC. green lactapp · 2005 2 sentences 2010LAW AND DISCUSSION In Monceaux v. R & R Construction, Inc., 05-533, pp. 5-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/05), 919 So.2d 795, 798-801 , writs denied, 06-585 (La.5/5/06), 927 So.2d 325 , 06-636 (La.5/5/06), 927 So.2d 317 , we reviewed the standard of review and the claimant's burden of proof in a workers' compensation case: In Dean v. Southmark Construction, 03-1051, p. 7 (La.7/6/04), 879 So.2d 112, 117 , the supreme court discussed the standard of review in workers' compensation cases: In worker's compensation cases, the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the appellate court to the OWC's 2010LAW AND DISCUSSION In Monceaux v. R & R Construction, Inc., 05-533, pp. 5-7 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/30/05), 919 So.2d 795, 798-801 , wits denied, 06-585 (La.5/5/06), 927 So.2d 325 , 06-636 (La.5/5/06), 927 So.2d 317 , we reviewed the standard of review and the claimant’s burden of proof in a workers’ compensation case: In Dean v. Southmark Construction, 03-1051, p. 7 (La.7/6/04), 879 So.2d 112, 117 , the supreme court discussed the standard of review in workers’ compensation cases: I.Jn worker’s compensation cases, the appropriate standard of review to be applied by the appellate court to the OWC’s	2	2006–2010
Illinois v. Gates green scotus · 1983 2 sentences 2002In State v. Fisher, 97-1133, p. 8 (La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 1179, 1184 , the Supreme Court discussed the factors to evaluate when the police rely on a tip from a confidential informant: \|7While probable cause must be determined on the totality of the circumstances, an informant’s reliability, veracity and basis of knowledge are “all highly relevant.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ] (1983); State v. Ruffin, 448 So.2d 1274, 1278 (La.1984). 2002In State v. Fisher, 97-1133, p. 8 (La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 1179, 1184 , the Supreme Court discussed the factors to evaluate when the police rely on a tip from a confidential informant: \|7While probable cause must be determined on the totality of the circumstances, an informant’s reliability, veracity and basis of knowledge are “all highly relevant.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ] (1983); State v. Ruffin, 448 So.2d 1274, 1278 (La.1984).	2	2002–2002
Ramaswami v. Texas Department of Human Services green scotus · 1994 2 sentences 2002In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), the supreme court discussed the standard to be applied in the review of damage awards: The standard for appellate review of general damage awards is difficult to express and is necessarily non-specific, and the requirement of an articulated basis for disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification of a generous or stingy award. 2000In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), the supreme court discussed the standard an appellate court must apply when reviewing the award of general damages by a lower court: [T]he discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.	2	2000–2002
Thomas Nelson, Inc. v. Harper House, Inc green scotus · 1994 2 sentences 2002In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), the supreme court discussed the standard to be applied in the review of damage awards: The standard for appellate review of general damage awards is difficult to express and is necessarily non-specific, and the requirement of an articulated basis for disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification of a generous or stingy award. 2000In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), the supreme court discussed the standard an appellate court must apply when reviewing the award of general damages by a lower court: [T]he discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.	2	2000–2002
Lumley v. Hogsett green scotus · 1994 2 sentences 2002In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), the supreme court discussed the standard to be applied in the review of damage awards: The standard for appellate review of general damage awards is difficult to express and is necessarily non-specific, and the requirement of an articulated basis for disturbing such awards gives little guidance as to what articulation suffices to justify modification of a generous or stingy award. 2000In Youn v. Maritime Overseas Corp., 623 So.2d 1257, 1261 (La.1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1114 , 114 S.Ct. 1059 , 127 L.Ed.2d 379 (1994), the supreme court discussed the standard an appellate court must apply when reviewing the award of general damages by a lower court: [T]he discretion vested in the trier of fact is "great," and even vast, so that an appellate court should rarely disturb an award of general damages.	2	2000–2002
State v. Fisher green la · 1998 2 sentences 2002In State v. Fisher, 97-1133, p. 8 (La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 1179, 1184 , the Supreme Court discussed the factors to evaluate when the police rely on a tip from a confidential informant: \|7While probable cause must be determined on the totality of the circumstances, an informant’s reliability, veracity and basis of knowledge are “all highly relevant.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ] (1983); State v. Ruffin, 448 So.2d 1274, 1278 (La.1984). 2002In State v. Thompson, 2001-0524, p. 6(La.App.4 Cir.1/2/02), 806 So.2d 150, 154 , this Court cited State v. Fisher, 97-1133, p. 8(La.9/9/98), 720 So.2d 1179,1184 , a case in which the Supreme Court discussed the factors to evaluate when the police rely on a tip from a confidential informant: While probable cause must be determined on the totality of the circumstances, an informant’s reliability, veracity and basis of knowledge are “all highly relevant.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 [, 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 ](1983); State v. Ruffin, 448 So.2d 1274, 1278 (La.1984).	2	2002–2002
Rottman v. Beverly green la · 1935 2 sentences 1968In Rottman v. Beverly, 183 La. 947 , 165 So. 153, 156 , the Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of last clear chance and we feel that the following best summarizes that doctrine, to-wit: “If a plaintiff negligently puts himself in a place of danger and his negligence and danger are actually discovered by the defendant, then there devolves upon the defendant a duty which intervenes or arises subsequent to the negligent acts of the plaintiff, and that duty is to save the plaintiff from the consequences of his negligent act if he can.” The record points out that the weather condition on the date 1968In Rottman v. Beverly, 183 La. 947 , 165 So. 153, 156 , the Supreme Court discussed the doctrine of last clear chance and we feel that the following best summarizes that doctrine, to-wit: “If a plaintiff negligently puts himself in a place of danger and his negligence and danger are actually discovered by the defendant, then there devolves upon the defendant a duty which intervenes or arises subsequent to the negligent acts of the plaintiff, and that duty is to save the plaintiff from the consequences of his negligent act if he can.” The record points out that the weather condition on the date	2	1968–1968
Mathieu v. New Orleans Public Library green la · 2010 1 sentence 2021In Mathieu v. New Orleans Public Library, 2009-2746 (La. 10/19/10), 50 So.3d 1259 , the Supreme Court discussed the standard for appellate review of the Commission’s disciplinary decisions stating: Appellate courts reviewing civil service disciplinary cases are presented with a multifaceted review function.	1	2021–2021
Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green la · 1998 1 sentence 2018Office of State Bldgs. , 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), 113 So.3d 175 , the supreme court discussed the analysis to determine the presence of an unreasonable risk of harm: We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as "a disputed issue of *793 mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts." Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 97-1174, p. 4 (La. 3/4/98), 708 So.2d 362 , 364 (quoting Tillman v. Johnson , 612 So.2d 70 (La.1993) (per curiam) ).	1	2018–2018
Tillman v. Johnson green la · 1993 1 sentence 2018Office of State Bldgs. , 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), 113 So.3d 175 , the supreme court discussed the analysis to determine the presence of an unreasonable risk of harm: We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as "a disputed issue of *793 mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts." Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 97-1174, p. 4 (La. 3/4/98), 708 So.2d 362 , 364 (quoting Tillman v. Johnson , 612 So.2d 70 (La.1993) (per curiam) ).	1	2018–2018
Broussard v. State ex rel. Office of State Buildings green la · 2013 1 sentence 2018Office of State Bldgs. , 2012-1238 (La. 4/5/13), 113 So.3d 175 , the supreme court discussed the analysis to determine the presence of an unreasonable risk of harm: We have described the question of whether a defect presents an unreasonable risk of harm as "a disputed issue of *793 mixed fact and law or policy that is peculiarly a question for the jury or trier of the facts." Reed v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 97-1174, p. 4 (La. 3/4/98), 708 So.2d 362 , 364 (quoting Tillman v. Johnson , 612 So.2d 70 (La.1993) (per curiam) ).	1	2018–2018
In re Barber green la · 2012 1 sentence 2013The Loiseaus argue that they and State Farm are co-obligees, and thus, in their view, prescription is interrupted as to their claims as well. 3 In Wells v. Zadeck, 11-1232, pp. 6-7 (La.3/30/12), 89 So.3d 1145, 1149-50 , the supreme court discussed the exception of prescription, stating: Is An exception of prescription must be specifically pleaded and may not be supplied by the court.	1	2013–2013
State v. Bazile green la · 2013 1 sentence 2013In State v. Bazile, 12-2248, pp. 17-19 (La.5/7/13), — So.3d -, 2013 WL 1880395 (footnote omitted), the supreme court discussed the waiver of the right to trial by jury as follows: To be valid, a defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial must be knowing and intelligent.	1	2013–2013
Babin v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. green la · 2000	1	2012–2012
State v. Major green la · 2004	1	2011–2011
RING CONSTRUCTION, LLC v. Chateau Des Lions, LLC neutral la · 2006	1	2010–2010
Dishon v. Ponthie neutral la · 2006	1	2010–2010
Ferrell v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. green la · 1995	1	2009–2009
Foley v. Entergy Louisiana, Inc. green la · 2006	1	2009–2009
Smith v. OUR LADY OF LAKE HOSP. green la · 1994	1	2008–2008
Robinson v. Heard green la · 2002	1	2008–2008
Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La Cuesta green scotus · 1982	1	2007–2007
State v. Carr green la · 2000	1	2005–2005
State v. Walker green la · 2001	1	2005–2005
Montgomery v. Opelousas General Hosp. green la · 1989	1	2005–2005
City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs green la · 1994	1	2003–2003
Davis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green la · 2000	1	2002–2002
State v. Thompson neutral lactapp · 2002	1	2002–2002
Rivet v. State, Dept. of Trans. and Dev. green la · 1996	1	2002–2002
Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc. green la · 1977	1	2002–2002

Statutes the citing opinions construe

LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1021 (9) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 23:1031 (8) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 1 (4) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 14:95.1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 15:529.1 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:964 (3) LA § La. Rev. Stat. § 40:967 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

LA 47 (1968–2021) IL 20 (1971–2015) FL 11 (1958–2013) PA 10 (1974–2023) OR 9 (1976–2014) TX 8 (1971–2017) CA 6 (2002–2023) MS 5 (1984–2018) OH 5 (1981–2007) MI 4 (1978–1986) MN 4 (1987–2012) TN 3 (1999–2001) WI 3 (1992–2023) CT 3 (2001–2002) IN 2 (1996–1999) VA 2 (1999–2012) NC 2 (2000–2010) AK 2 (1985–1987) MA 2 (2001–2023) AR 2 (2019–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check