Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hatton, 985 So. 2d 709.

113 citing documents.

Larry Bize, Sr. and Michelle R. Bize v. Malcolm Larvadain La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
7/1/08), n.6, the supreme court considered that the defendant raised and particularized a constitutional claim by a motion to quash which “included a separate heading titled ‘Memorandum in Support.’ The Motion to Quash and Memorandum in Support were filed, signed by defense counsel, and stamped as one document[.]” The sup
Bize v. Larvadain 263 So. 3d 584 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
7/1/08), , 713 n.6, the supreme court considered that the defendant raised and particularized a constitutional claim by a motion to quash which "included a separate heading titled 'Memorandum in Support.'
State v. Broussard 268 So. 3d 307 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
7/1/08), , 718 ; State v. Green, 16-0057, p. 6 (La.App.
Alpha Capital U.S. Bank v. White 268 So. 3d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
7/1/08), , 719 ; Mosing v. Domas, 02-0012 (La.
State v. Brooks 258 So. 3d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Cespedes 241 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Marshall 245 So. 3d 336 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Saulny 220 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Shaw 223 So. 3d 607 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Sumler 219 So. 3d 503 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
Vincent v. Munster 206 So. 3d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
7/1/08), (declining to consider the unconstitutionality of a statute that was raised for the first time on appeal).
State of Louisiana v. David Wayne Sims La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08)
State v. Grant 198 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Hatton, 07-2377, p. 14 (La.7/1/08); .
State of Louisiana v. Dominick Sims 195 So. 3d 441 La. 2016
State v. Sadeghi 194 So. 3d 611 La. 2016
State v. Hatton, 02-2377, p. 15 (La.7/1/08), .
State of Louisiana v. Robert Lee Heard, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
7/1/08), -20, (footnotes omitted) (citations omitted), as follows: As an initial matter, before determining whether the trial court was correct in granting defendant’s Motion to Quash and declaring La.
State v. Heard 215 So. 3d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
The need for particularization was set forth by the supreme court in State v. Hatton, 07-2377, pp. 13-16 (La.7/1/08), -20 , (footnotes omitted) (citations omitted), as follows: As an initial matter, before determining whether the trial court was correct in granting defendant’s Motion to Quash *831 and declaring La.
State ex rel. Arnaud v. State 188 So. 3d 1004 La. 2016
State v. Gibson 186 So. 3d 772 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Overruled State of Louisiana v. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Overruled State v. Williams 181 So. 3d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), .
State v. Polly 179 So. 3d 892 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Gonzalez 173 So. 3d 1227 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08); .
State v. Tillery 167 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2014
10 State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08); -20 (citing State v. Schoening, 00-0903 (La.10/17/00); (citing Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., 94-1238 (La.11/30/94); -65 )).
State v. Jackson 154 So. 3d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
in light of Hatton and Camese, [sthe district court could not find that § 14.95.1 is unconstitutional as applied in this case.” In State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), , the defendant filed a motion *725 to quash in which he raised two constitutional challenges, one as to equal protection and one as to derogation of the right to present a defense.
State of Louisiana v. Carl J. Webb, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
7/1/08), the State argues that “[a]n appellate court should not consider a constitutional challenge unless it was presented appropriately at the trial court level.” According to the State, Defendant did not preserve the issue in the present case.
State v. Webb 149 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Citing State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), , the State argues that “[a]n appellate court should not consider a constitutional challenge unless it was presented appropriately at the trial court level.” According to the State, Defendant did not preserve the issue in the present case.
State v. Dawson 154 So. 3d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), -19 .
State v. Kennedy 140 So. 3d 1201 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
See State v. Hatton, 2007-2377 (La.7/1/08), , and Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 94-1238 (La.11/30/94), .
State v. Webb 133 So. 3d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Hatton, 2007-2377 (La.7/1/08), -20 .
State v. Smith 144 So. 3d 867 La. 2014
1/24/12), ; State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), , these decisions rest on the principle that "a judge's sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of constitutionality accorded legislative enactments.” Istre v. Meche, 00-1316 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Jessie James Duplantis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State ex rel. J.D. 129 So. 3d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
isiana Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that “[wjhile there is no single procedure for attacking the constitutionality of a statute, it has long been held that the unconstitutionality of a statute must be specifically pleaded and the grounds for the claim particularized.” State v. Overstreet, 12-1854, p. 9 (La.3/19/13), (quoting State v. Hatton, 07-2377, p. 13 (La.7/1/08), ) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).
State v. Duplantis 127 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hatton, 07-2877 (La.7/1/08), .
State ex rel. C.M. 128 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 94-1238, p. 8 (La.11/30/94), -865 ; See also State v. Hatton, 07-2377, p. 13 (La.7/1/08), -719 .
State ex rel. D.W. 125 So. 3d 1180 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Vallo v. Gayle Oil Company, Inc., 94-1238 (La.11/30/94), -65 ; See also State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), .
State v. Hankton 122 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), (“Raising a constitutional challenge and particularizing the grounds in a memorandum is insufficient.”) We next explain that Mr. Hankton has failed to present evidence sufficient to establish his assertion of unconstitutionality.
State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hatton, 2007-2377, p. 14 (La.7/1/08); ; [State v.] Schoening, 2000-0903, p. 3 [ (La.10/17/00) ]; 770 So.2d [762,] at 764.
State v. Napoleon 119 So. 3d 238 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), -20 .
State v. Bazile 144 So. 3d 719 La. 2013
State v. Hatton, 2007-2377, p. 14 (La.7/1/08); ; Schoening , 2000-0903, p. 3; 770 So.2d at 764 .
State v. Overstreet 111 So. 3d 308 La. 2013
In State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), , this Court reversed a district court’s ruling that quashed a bill of information on the basis that a subsection of the statute defining the crime of computer-aided solicitation of a minor violated two state constitutional provisions.
Louisiana High School Athletics Ass'n v. State 107 So. 3d 583 La. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.7/1/08), (citing State v. Fleury, 01-0871, p. 5 (La.10/16/01), ; State v. Rones, 223 La.
State v. Fleming 95 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Hatton, 2007-2377, p. 13 (La.7/01/08), ; State v. Fleury, 2001-0871, p. 5 (La.10/16/01), .
Johnson v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC 95 So. 3d 1086 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
An appellate court may not consider a constitutional challenge unless it was “properly raised and pleaded in the trial court below.” Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., 94-1238, p. 8 (La.11/30/94), -65 ; Williams v. State, Dept. of Health and Hospitals, 95-0713, p. 4 (La.1/26/96), ; State v. Hatton, 2007-2377, p. 13 (La.7/1/08), .
State v. Foster 92 So. 3d 468 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
State v. Hatton, 2007-2877 (La.7/1/08), ; State v. Fleury, 01-0871 (La.10/16/01), ; State v. Flores, 27,736 (La.App.2d Cir.2/28/96), .
Dionysia Prejean v. Robert T. Barousse, Acadia Parish Clerk of Court La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
7/1/08), (wherein the supreme court noted that “[a] judge’s sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of constitutionality accorded legislative enactments”).
Prejean v. Barousse 90 So. 3d 477 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Mercadel, 03-3015, p. 8 (La.5/25/04), (wherein the supreme court explained that “a court should avoid constitutional questions whenever the case can be disposed of on non-constitutional grounds”) and State v. Hatton, 07-2377, p. 18 (La.7/1/08), (wherein the supreme court noted that “[a] judge’s sua sponte declaration of unconstitutionality is a derogation of the strong presumption of constitutionality accorded legislative enactments”).
State of Louisiana v. v. L. G. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
7/1/08), -20 (alteration in original), the supreme court stated: While there is no single procedure for attacking the constitutionality of a statute, it has long been held that the unconstitutionality of a statute must be specially pleaded and the grounds for the claim particularized.
State of Louisiana v. Ivan E. Goudeau La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Whitmore 58 So. 3d 583 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Hatton, 07-2377 (La.07/01/08), ; State v. Fleury, 01-0871 (La.10/16/01)