La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

4. CRIMINAL TRESPASS

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So. 3d 991 (La. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So. 3d 991 (La. 2010). · cites it 4× “" La.Rev.Stat. § 14:63(C). Consistent with these general principles, Louisiana appellate courts have routinely held trespasses to be a continuing tort.”
State v. Black, 41 So. 3d 1243 (La. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “R.S. 14:63 (trespassing), La. R.S. 14:69 (possession of stolen property) and La.”
Entrevia v. Hood, 427 So. 2d 1146 (La. 1983). “R.S. 14:63. An owner of property has valid economic and privacy interests which our law seeks to protect from intruders such as the plaintiff.”
State in Interest of JG, 641 So. 2d 633 (La. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “as a delinquent based on one count of criminal trespass, LSA-R.S. 14:63, and one count of disturbing the peace, LSA-R.”
State v. Davis, 540 So. 2d 600 (La. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 3× “Defendant Stanley Davis appeals his conviction of criminal trespassing, a violation of LSA-R.S. 14:63. On appeal defendant asserts the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the crime charged.”
Perrin v. Randy Tupper Homes, 21 So. 3d 474 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 15× “R.S. 14:63, despite also finding Plaintiffs had a legitimate reason to “look at the property.”
Nunez v. Wainoco Oil & Gas Co., 488 So. 2d 955 (La. 1986). · cites it 2× “§ 14:67) to criminal trespass (La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 14:63). The latter statute requires only entering the property of another without authorization.”
State v. Freeman, 427 So. 2d 1161 (La. 1983). “R.S. 14:63 (as amended by Acts 1981, No. 78).”
State v. Simmons, 817 So. 2d 16 (La. 2002). “R.S. 14:63 provides for the crime of criminal trespass in pertinent part as follows: A.”
Edmiston v. Wood, 566 So. 2d 673 (La. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “in the general public to hunt and fish upon the levees and the land that lies between the levees and the Mississippi River.”
State v. Cheatwood, 458 So. 2d 907 (La. 1984). “Nevertheless, there is a logical distinction between those defenses which actually defeat an essential element of the offense and those defenses which present exculpatory circumstances that defeat culpability, despite the state's proof beyond a reasonable doubt of all the…”
Wiley v. Wiley, 800 So. 2d 1106 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “R.S. 14:63, disturbing the peace and criminal trespass.”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(A) — 1 case
Perrin v. Randy Tupper Homes, 21 So. 3d 474 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:63, despite also finding Plaintiffs had a legitimate reason to “look at the property.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(B) — 6 cases
Wiley v. Wiley, 800 So. 2d 1106 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 14:63, disturbing the peace and criminal trespass.”
State v. Rack, 585 So. 2d 1215 (La. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Lampton, 110 So. 3d 557 (La. 2013).
State v. Outlaw, 485 So. 2d 217 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. White, 543 So. 2d 124 (La. Ct. App. 1989).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(C) — 4 cases
Hogg v. Chevron USA, Inc., 45 So. 3d 991 (La. 2010). “" La.Rev.Stat. § 14:63(C). Consistent with these general principles, Louisiana appellate courts have routinely held trespasses to be a continuing tort.”
State v. Outlaw, 485 So. 2d 217 (La. Ct. App. 1986).
State ex rel. C.J., 63 So. 3d 1133 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
State Ex Rel. Cj, 63 So. 3d 1133 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(F) — 2 cases
Perrin v. Randy Tupper Homes, 21 So. 3d 474 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:63, despite also finding Plaintiffs had a legitimate reason to “look at the property.”
Williams v. Union Pac. R.R., 973 F. Supp. 2d 684 (W.D. La. 2013).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(F)(3) — 2 cases
Perrin v. Randy Tupper Homes, 21 So. 3d 474 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:63, despite also finding Plaintiffs had a legitimate reason to “look at the property.”
Williams v. Union Pac. R.R., 973 F. Supp. 2d 684 (W.D. La. 2013).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(F)(4) — 1 case
Parker v. Town of Woodworth, 160 So. 3d 1113 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(G) — 2 cases
State ex rel. C.J., 63 So. 3d 1133 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
State Ex Rel. Cj, 63 So. 3d 1133 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(G)(1) — 2 cases
State ex rel. C.J., 63 So. 3d 1133 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
State Ex Rel. Cj, 63 So. 3d 1133 (La. Ct. App. 2011).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(H) — 4 cases
Perrin v. Randy Tupper Homes, 21 So. 3d 474 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 14:63, despite also finding Plaintiffs had a legitimate reason to “look at the property.”
Williams v. Union Pac. R.R., 973 F. Supp. 2d 684 (W.D. La. 2013).
Nickens v. Albertsons Companies Inc. Louisiana (E.D. La. 2025).
Jones Co. v. Signature Flight Support, LLC, et al. (E.D. La. 2026).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 14:63(L) — 1 case
Verdin v. Louisiana Land & Explor., 693 So. 2d 162 (La. Ct. App. 1997).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.