Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Gatlin, 129 So. 2d 4.

46 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Byran Louis Fogleman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
998, (1959) (public intimidation), (overruled insofar as a procedural point, So.2d 4, 7--8 (1961), but not as to its substantive holding).
State v. Fogleman 98 So. 3d 964 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
998 , (1959) (public intimidation), (overruled insofar as a procedural point, , -8 (1961), but not as to its substantive holding).
State v. Pitre 893 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
28 , 99 So.2d at 12 (1958), overruled in part, , (1961), in support of his argument and contends there is less evidence in the case at bar than in State v. La Borde .
State of Louisiana v. Kevin James Pitre La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
28, 99 So.2d at 12 (1958), overruled in part, So.2d 4 (1961), in support of his argument and contends there is less evidence in the case at bar than in State v. La Borde.
State v. Brewster 764 So. 2d 945 La. 2000
Overruled State v. Love 602 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
NOTES [1] We recognize that State v. Daniels
State v. Kyzar 509 So. 2d 147 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
998, (1958), reversed on other grounds, , -8 (1961).
City of Baton Rouge v. Stauffer Chemical Co. 500 So. 2d 397 La. 1987
State v. Hall 441 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
998 , (1958) overruled on other grounds ]; thus, proof of specific intent is required as an essential element of the crime.
State v. Allen 440 So. 2d 1330 La. 1983
State v. Kohler 434 So. 2d 1110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
State v. Johnson 368 So. 2d 719 La. 1979
998 , (1959) (public intimidation), (overruled insofar as a procedural point, , -8 (1961), but not as to its substantive holding).
Overruled State v. Thompson 366 So. 2d 1291 La. 1978
(1961), we overruled prior jurisprudence and held that when this court found no evidence of the crime charged or an essential element thereof upon review of a bill of exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial grounded on such a contention, defendant would not be discharged but rather
Overruled State v. Liggett 363 So. 2d 1184 La. 1978
(1961), we overruled prior jurisprudence and held that when this court found no evidence of the crime charged or an essential element thereof upon review of a bill of exceptions taken to the overruling of a motion for a new trial grounded on such a contention, defendant would not be discharged but rather
Gathright v. Smith 352 So. 2d 282 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
(1961); Meyer v. Board of Trustees of F. Pension & R. Fund, 199 La.
State v. Elzie 343 So. 2d 712 La. 1977
998 , (1959) (public intimidation), (overruled insofar as a procedural point, , -8 (1961), but not as to its substantive holding).
State v. Butler 331 So. 2d 425 La. 1976
(1961); State v. Ware, 228 La.
State v. Wright 305 So. 2d 406 La. 1974
Several exceptions to this general rule have been recognized by the cases; for example: 1) When a statute attempts to limit the constitutional power of the courts to review cases, , (1961); State v. Hudson, 253 La.
State v. Owens 301 So. 2d 591 La. 1974
534 , (1963); , (1961); State v. McLean, 216 La.
Gulf States Theatres of La., Inc. v. Richardson 287 So. 2d 480 La. 1973
636 , (1968); , (1961); 16 Am.
State v. Douglas 278 So. 2d 485 La. 1973
534 , ; , ; State v. McLean, 216 La.
State v. Kelly 268 So. 2d 650 La. 1972
Smith v. Dunn 268 So. 2d 670 La. 1972
992 , (1969), majority and dissent; , (1961).
State v. Dimopoullas 257 So. 2d 644 La. 1972
State v. Arnold 249 So. 2d 552 La. 1971
Article 19, Section 9 of the Constitution; State v. Gatlin, [ ] ; State v. Broussard, [ 217 La.
State v. Hutchings 249 So. 2d 532 La. 1971
10, La.Constitution; , .
Summerell v. Phillips 247 So. 2d 542 La. 1971
For example, when a statute attempts to limit the constitutional power of the courts to review cases: , ; Mayer v. Board of Trustees, Etc., 199 La.
State v. Holmes 245 So. 2d 707 La. 1971
9 (1921) ; , (1961); State v. Broussard, 217 La.
State v. Heymann 235 So. 2d 78 La. 1970
State v. Roberts, 224 La.
State v. Lopez 235 So. 2d 394 La. 1970
State v. Hudson 221 So. 2d 484 La. 1969
9 (1921) ; , (1961); State v. Broussard, 217 La.
State v. Hochenedel 217 So. 2d 392 La. 1968
778, Comment (a); , (1961).
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503 La. 1968
1043 , ; , ; and State v. McDonell, 208 La.
State v. Page 206 So. 2d 503 La. 1968
1043 , ; , ; and State v. McDonell, 208 La.
State v. Jones 204 So. 2d 775 La. 1967
State v. Latigue 203 So. 2d 546 La. 1967
State v. McDonell, 208 La.
State v. Jones 201 So. 2d 105 La. 1967
State v. Martin 200 So. 2d 871 La. 1967
State v. McDonnell, 208 La.
State v. Brent 184 So. 2d 14 La. 1966
534 , ; , ; State v. Roberts, 224 La.
Buras v. Orleans Parish Democratic Executive Committee 177 So. 2d 576 La. 1965
734 , ; , ), and that it is the duty of the Court to uphold a statute unless it clearly violates the organic law, any doubt being resolved in favor of the validity of a solemn expression of the legislative will (Police Jury of St.
Reynolds v. Louisiana Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control 173 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
City of Monroe v. Dozier 164 So. 2d 322 La. 1964
Art. 518; , ; State v. Cooper, 231 La.
State v. Richard 158 So. 2d 828 La. 1963
State v. Cade 153 So. 2d 382 La. 1963
State v. Cooper 131 So. 2d 55 La. 1961
This contention may not be considered as it requires an examination of all the evidence taken below ( , , and cases there cited), which is not properly before us because appellant failed to perfect any bills of exceptions in the case.
State v. Gonzales 129 So. 2d 796 La. 1961
See-Section 10, of Article 7 of the Constitution and State v. Gatlin (In re Daniel), , , and authorities there-cited.