DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Everett, 816 So. 2d 1272.

51 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Christopher Raymond Diano La. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Darren D. McKeever La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
    5/14/02), State v. Baker, 06-2175 (La.
  • State Of Louisiana v. Rodney Jack Strain, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
  • State Of Louisiana v. Christine Jackson La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
  • State v. Williams 247 So. 3d 129 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Shaw 223 So. 3d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. Michael James Lacour La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    uction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), quoting State v. Broussard, 213 La.
  • State v. Lacour 117 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    atutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , quoting State v. Broussard, 213 La.
  • State v. Beaudette 97 So. 3d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Everett 96 So. 3d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    4 Cir. 9/27/00), , reversed on other grounds, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Taurean Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Jackson 92 So. 3d 1243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The legislative purpose for sentencing under the habitual offender provision was set forth by the court in State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    5/14/02), quoting State v. Broussard, 213 La.
  • State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    atutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , quoting State v. Broussard, 213 La.
  • State v. Cummings 57 So. 3d 499 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Discussion In State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.5/14/02), , the Louisiana Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether La.
  • State v. Watts 41 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    atutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , quoting State v. Broussard, 213 La.
  • State v. Barthelemy 32 So. 3d 999 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    4 Cir. 9/27/00), , reversed on other grounds, 2000-2998
  • State v. Grimes 16 So. 3d 418 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Timmons 998 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Robinson 996 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    App. 4 Cir. 9/27/00), , rev'd on other grounds, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State of Louisiana v. E.P.C., Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    5/14/02), the supreme court explained: Art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution and La.Const.
  • State v. E.P.C. 980 So. 2d 219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    The defendant also argues that the imposition of “such restrictions is tantamount to a sentencing entrapment with regard to departures from sentencing guidelines.” In State v. Everett, 00-2988, p. 13 (La.5/14/02), , the supreme court explained: Art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution and La.
  • State v. Baker 970 So. 2d 948 La. 2008
    State v. Everett, 2000-2998 p. 7 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
    State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , quoting State v. Broussard, 213 La.
  • State v. King 969 So. 2d 1228 La. 2007
    State v. Johnson, 03-2993, p. 18 (La.10/19/04), ; State v. Everett, 2000-2998, p. 7 (La.5/14/02), ; State v. Johnson, 97-1906, p. 8 (La.3/4/98), .
  • State v. Johnson 962 So. 2d 1126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    *1135 In State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.5/14/02), , the supreme court stated: Subsection (C) [of La.
  • State v. Clesi 959 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    [9] See State v. Everett, 2000-2998, pp. 6-7 (La.5/14/02), , for a discussion of the term "cleansing period."
  • State v. Greene 951 So. 2d 1226 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Mourra 940 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. King 935 So. 2d 354 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    See State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.05/14/02), .
  • State v. Thomas 938 So. 2d 168 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    The defendant cites Chief Justice Calogero's concurrence (although referred to by the defendant as a dissent) in State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Qualls 921 So. 2d 226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    See State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Thomas 904 So. 2d 896 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    [9] The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized that the applicable period is the one in effect when the underlying offense is committed in State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Brown 904 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    statutes are subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, supra, the rule is not to be applied with “ ‘such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which ^purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.’ ” State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), (quoting State v. Brous- *809 sard; 213 La.
  • State v. Dorsey 907 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    On remand, the trial court found that although the dates of the guilty pleas concerning the predicate offenses were entered on the same date, State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), , questioned the prior Mims decision.
  • State v. Washington 895 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    15:529.1(C.); State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Butler 894 So. 2d 415 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
    In State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.5/14/02), , cited by the State, the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected the argument by the defendant therein that under La.
  • State v. Lowery 890 So. 2d 711 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    However, (2002) questions the prior Mims decision [citing pages 1280-1283 by footnote].
  • State v. Williams 893 So. 2d 7 La. 2004
    State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , reh'g denied, 6/21/02, quoting State v. Broussard, 213 La.
  • State v. Johnson 884 So. 2d 568 La. 2004
    The correctness of our holding in Mims was first called into question, albeit in dicta, by our decision in State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), , wherein we revealed that, in the course of examining a different aspect of the Habitual Offender Law, legislative material unavailable at the time of the Mims decision had been uncovered.
  • State v. Brown 879 So. 2d 1276 La. 2004
    State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , reh'g denied, 6/21/02, quoting State v. Broussard, 213 La.
  • State v. Goldston 868 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    At the multiple bill hearing, the State argued that under State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.5/14/02), , the defendant could be sentenced as a third felony offender.
  • State v. Young 863 So. 2d 658 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    In State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.5/14/02), , the Supreme Court discussed La.
  • State v. Tumblin 857 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Moreover, he contends his motion to quash should have been granted because the trial court erred in stating that it would be bound by the decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Lyles 858 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    This issue was recently addressed by our Supreme Court in State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • In re Laudumiey 849 So. 2d 515 La. 2003
    10 In State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), , this court explained the focus of the ex post facto analysis is whether the | mew law redefines conduct or increases the penalty by which the conduct is punishable: Art. I, § 10 of the United States Constitution and La.
  • State v. Abram 832 So. 2d 1050 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    The Louisiana Supreme Court granted writs, and remanded to this Court for consideration in light of its recent opinion, State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Foster 828 So. 2d 566 La. 2002
    See State v. Everett, 00-K-2998 (La.5/14/02)
  • State v. Abram 826 So. 2d 1111 La. 2002
    Case remanded to the Court of Appeal for consideration in light of State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), .
  • State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
    State v. Everett, 2000-2998 (La.5/14/02), .