Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hightower, 116 So. 2d 699.

19 citing documents.

State v. Malarcher 249 So. 3d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
885-86, , 703 (1959), the defendant argues that there was not a sufficient amount of circumstantial evidence to prove that he was "incapable of operating an automobile in a manner in which an ordinarily prudent and cautious *841 man in full possession of his faculties, using reasonable care, would oper
State of Louisiana v. Michael Kees La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
12/2/08), (citations omitted), the supreme court discussed behavioral manifestation as an observable condition of intoxication: So.2d 699, 703 (1959), this court stated that “a person is intoxicated within the provisions of the statute when he does not have the normal use of his physical and mental faculties by reason of the use of alcoholic beverages (or narcotics), thus renderi
State v. Davis 128 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Delanueville, 90 So.3d at 20 ( , (1959)).
State v. Christophe 102 So. 3d 935 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Delanueville 90 So. 3d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Kestle 996 So. 2d 275 La. 2008
[5] *279 , (1959), this court stated that "a person is intoxicated within the provisions of the statute when he does not have the normal use of his physical and mental faculties by reason of the use of alcoholic beverages (or narcotics), thus rendering such person incapable of operating an automobile in a ma
State v. Kestle 963 So. 2d 1023 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Carr 761 So. 2d 1271 La. 2000
The court also noted that in two previous cases, , (1959), and State v. McAlister, 234 La.
State v. Carr 738 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The court in Guidry, 467 So.2d at 158 , citing Williams, 449 So.2d at 748 , noted that in Williams , it had concluded that “the use of a motorized vehicle is a pivotal element of the crime of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.” , (1959), and State v. McAlister, 234 La.
State v. Harris 708 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Guidry 467 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
1028 , (1958), , (1959), this Court stated that: "We are persuaded in our decision by the determination of the McAlister and Hightower courts that the use of a motorized vehicle is a pivotal element of the crime of operating a vehicle while intoxicated."
State v. Williams 449 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
" (Emphasis added) , (1959), Chief Justice Fournet stated: "...
State v. Corkran 448 So. 2d 1346 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
State v. Cichirillo 440 So. 2d 934 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
City of Pineville v. Robinson 256 So. 2d 427 La. 1972
(1959); State v. Dudley, 159 La.
State v. Dugas 211 So. 2d 285 La. 1968
Under the leading case in the State of Louisiana vs. High-tower [ , ], the Supreme Court of Louisiana stated The defendant asserts these words constitute argument, and the District Attorney improperly injected them into his opening statement to the jury.
State v. Cloud 176 So. 2d 620 La. 1965
819 , (1964); , (1959); State v. Marsh, 233 La.
State v. Bonanno 163 So. 2d 72 La. 1964
2d 643 ; , ; State v. Robertson, 241 La.
State v. Deutch 161 So. 2d 730 La. 1964
1043 , ; , ; Barnett v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans, La.App., ; State v. Pete, 206 La.