DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Landiak v. Richmond, 899 So. 2d 535.

92 citing documents.

  • Eames v. Schedler 199 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • State of Louisiana, Board of Ethics v. Scott A. Fontenot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    3/24/05), the court stated, “[b]ecause election laws must be interpreted to give the electorate 3 the widest possible choice of candidates, a person objecting to candidacy bears the burden of proving that the candidate is disqualified.” Further, the court noted, “a court det
  • State of Louisiana, Board of Ethics v. Maureen Robbins Saunders La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State Board of Ethics v. Fontenot 215 So. 3d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    In Landiak v. Richmond, 05-758, pp. 6-7 (La.3/24/05), , the court stated, .“[bjecause election laws must be interpreted to give the electorate|4the widest possible choice of candidates, a person objecting to candidacy bears the burden of proving that the candidate is disqualified.” Further, the court noted, “a court determining whether the person objecting to candid
  • State Board of Ethics v. Saunders 215 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    The party “objecting to candidacy bears the burden of proving that the candidate is disqualified.” Landiak v. Richmond, 05-758, pp. 6-7 (La.3/24/05), .
  • State, Board of Ethics v. Garriga 182 So. 3d 194 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Toups v. Wolfson 176 So. 3d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    See also Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, p. 7 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Kelley v. Desmarteau 184 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.3/24/05), ; Russell v. Goldsby, 2000-2595 (La.9/22/00), ; Thebeau v. Smith, supra.
  • District Attorney v. DeJohn 182 So. 3d 188 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • State Board of Ethics v. Arnold 184 So. 3d 60 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Russo v. Burns 147 So. 3d 1111 La. 2014
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, p. 7-8 (La.3/24/05), -2 .
  • State, Board of Ethics v. Brown 148 So. 3d 240 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.03/24/05), ; Russell v. Goldsby, 00-2595 (La.09/22/00), .
  • Russo v. Burns 150 So. 3d 377 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    See Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 p. 7 (La.3/24/05), ; Becker v. Dean, OS-2493, p. 7 (La.9/18/03), .
  • Louisiana Board of Ethics v. Ralph Wilson and Hon. Louie Bernard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Louisiana Board of Ethics v. Wilson 161 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Richmond v. Landrieu 150 So. 3d 43 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, p. 8, .
  • Cleveland v. Williams 148 So. 3d 229 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    See also Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Thebeau v. Smith 148 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.3/24/05), ; Russell v. Goldsby, 2000-2595 (La.9/22/00), .
  • Ogden v. Gray 99 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Morton v. Hicks 74 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    18:1401 A. In Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.3/24/05), , the supreme court explained the general principles employed in deciding a challenge to qualification for candidacy: Because election laws must be interpreted to give the electorate the widest possible choice of candidates, a person objecting to candidacy bears the burden of proving that the candidate is disqualified
  • Scaglione v. Juneau 45 So. 3d 191 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2010
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0768 p. 19 (La., 3/24/05), -49 .
  • State v. Taylor 27 So. 3d 1079 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.03/24/05), .
  • Sherar v. Besse 15 So. 3d 385 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • Richard v. Richard 20 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, p. 8 (La.3/24/05), .
  • In Re Richmond 996 So. 2d 282 La. 2008
    The next day, the court issued a decree rendering judgment in favor of Ms. Landiak, unanimously declaring respondent ineligible as a candidate for the office of Council District D. Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Williams v. Fahrenholtz 990 So. 2d 99 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    The burden of proof and applicable principles in an election matter were enunciated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, pp. 9-11 (La.3/24/05), , 542-44: Because election laws must be interpreted to give the electorate the widest possible choice of candidates, a person objecting to candidacy bears the burden of proving that the candidate is disqualified.
  • Robichaux v. Shields 991 So. 2d 113 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Id.; Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/30/05), .
  • Brou v. Martin 993 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758, pp. 6-7 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Font v. Clark 993 So. 2d 278 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758, pp. 6-7 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Sherar v. Besse 986 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • Imbraguglio v. Bernadas 968 So. 2d 745 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    The applicable principles in determining whether an individual has changed his domicile were enunciated by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, pp. 9-11 (La.3/24/05), , 542-44: Louisiana case law has traditionally held that domicile consists of two elements, residence and intent to remain.
  • Deculus v. Welborn 970 So. 2d 1057 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • State v. Ourso 964 So. 2d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, p. 8 (La.3/24/05), .
  • State v. Pearson 939 So. 2d 568 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    In Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), , the Louisiana Supreme Court also quoted Article 38 when discussing domicile in an election case.
  • State of Louisiana, Board of Ethics v. Jim Darby La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    3/24/05), see also, Louisiana State Board of Ethics v. Garrett, 06-0263 (La.App.
  • State, Board of Ethics v. Darby 937 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    See Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), ; see also, Louisiana State Board of Ethics v. Garrett, 06-0263 (La.App.
  • Clark v. Davis 938 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    Landiak v. Richmond, 2005-0758 (La.3/24/05), .
  • Brown v. Archer 929 So. 2d 172 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Landiak v. Richmond, XXXX-XXXX, p. 8 (La.3/30/05); (internal citations omitted).
  • Louisiana State Bd. of Ethics v. Garrett 929 So. 2d 176 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758 (La.3/24/05), ; Becker v. Dean, 03-2493 (La.9/18/03), ; Russell v. Goldsby, 00-2595 (La.9/22/00); (La.
  • Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Desoto Parish School Bd. 907 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    See Landiak v. Richmond, XXXX-XXXX (La.03/24/05), ; writ denied
  • Bonvillain v. Preferred Industries and LWCC 917 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Landiak v. Richmond, 05-0758, p. 10 (La.3/24/05)
  • Augillard v. Barney 904 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    The law concerning residence and domicile for purposes of candidacy are set forth in the recent case of Landiak v. Richmond, XXXX-XXXX (La.3/30/05), , and need not be repeated in detail here.