DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Broadnax, 45 So. 2d 604.

29 citing documents.

  • State v. Washington 188 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Edward Charles Jackson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    the court explained in pertinent part: This court has previously pointed out that the comments to the various articles of the Criminal Code, printed as footnotes, have legislative sanction, and that it is appropriate and proper to take into co
  • State in the Interest of N.W.L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    (1950), the court held that “the first object of the appellate court in construing the verdict is to ascertain with reasonable certainty the intention of the jury, which intent may be ascertained or arrived at by reference to the indictment or information and the charge of the court.” The
  • State ex rel. N.W.L. 994 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    (1950), the court held that “the first object of the appellate court in construing the verdict is to ascertain with reasonable certainty the intention of the jury, which intent may be ascertained or arrived at by reference to the indictment or information and the charge of the court.” The Bro
  • State Ex Rel. Nwl 994 So. 2d 607 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    (1950), the court held that "the first object of the appellate court in construing the verdict is to ascertain with reasonable certainty the intention of the jury, which intent may be ascertained or arrived at by reference to the indictment or information and the charge of the court."
  • State in the Intrest of M.L. L. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    1003, (1950), the court held that, “[t]he first object of the appellate court in construing the verdict is to ascertain with reasonable certainty the intention of the jury, which intent may be ascertained or arrived at by reference to the indictment or information and the charge of the court.” Additionally, in Broa
  • State ex rel. M.L.L. 994 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    (1950), the court held that, “[t]he first object of the appellate court in construing the verdict is to ascertain with reasonable certainty the intention of the jury, which intent may be ascertained or arrived at by reference to the indictment or information and the charge of the court.” Additional
  • State Ex Rel. Mll 994 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    (1950), the court held that, "[t]he first object of the appellate court in construing the verdict is to ascertain with reasonable certainty the intention of the jury, which intent may be ascertained or arrived at by reference to the indictment or information and the charge of the court."
  • State v. Odle 834 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Campbell 703 So. 2d 1358 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Brown 684 So. 2d 521 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    (1950), the defendant was charged with possession of heroin.
  • State v. Duke 625 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Knight 526 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Vincent 387 So. 2d 1097 La. 1980
  • State v. Williams 386 So. 2d 1342 La. 1980
  • State Ex Rel. Miller v. Henderson 329 So. 2d 707 La. 1976
  • State v. Keys 328 So. 2d 154 La. 1976
  • Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company 158 So. 2d 594 La. 1963
  • State v. Garner 115 So. 2d 855 La. 1959
    14:27, supra; , ; State v. Roberts, 213 La.
  • State v. Daniels 109 So. 2d 896 La. 1959
  • State v. Murphy 102 So. 2d 61 La. 1957
    2 While it appears that the line of cases cited by defense counsel substantiate their position, , .
  • State v. Marshfield 85 So. 2d 28 La. 1956
    14:27, included the crime of attempting to possess a , .
  • State v. Nicolosi 81 So. 2d 771 La. 1955
  • State v. Jourdain 74 So. 2d 203 La. 1954
    15:228, and the jurisprudence, , .
  • State v. Jourdain 74 So. 2d 203 La. 1954
    15:228, and the jurisprudence, , .
  • State v. Espinosa 66 So. 2d 323 La. 1953
    shall not exceed one-half of the largest fine, or one-half of the longest term of imprisonment prescribed for the offense so attempted, or both.” , , it is stated: “We do not agree that Section 17 shows any intention of the redactors of the Code to exclude Section 2 of the Uniform Narcotic Drug Act from the application of Article 27.” In 1952, the Legislature amended the Narcotic Act — Act No. 429 of 1952, LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Roy 58 So. 2d 323 La. 1952
    For a thorough discussion of the rule regarding the phraseology and the spelling of words in verdicts rendered by a jury in a criminal case, , .
  • State v. Roy 58 So. 2d 323 La. 1952
    For a thorough discussion of the rule regarding the phraseology and the spelling of words in verdicts rendered by a jury in a criminal case, , .
  • State v. Jugger 47 So. 2d 46 La. 1950
    See State v. Broadnax, 1950, , .