Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ferrie, 144 So. 2d 380.

27 citing documents.

State v. Kurz 245 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
10 *1231 State v. Ferrie , , 427, , 384 (1962), rev'd on other grounds , State ex rel.
State of Louisiana v. William Felix Vail La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
“In the absence of a statute of limitations, the state retains the right to prosecute for crimes indefinitely.”
State v. Vail 236 So. 3d 644 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Ferrie , , , 384 (1962).
State v. Anderson 121 So. 3d 119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Anderson, supra at 1086-87 ( , (1962), abrogated on other grounds by State ex rel.
State v. Terry 108 So. 3d 126 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
abrogated on other grounds by State ex rel.
State v. Anderson 91 So. 3d 1080 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2012
(1962), abrogated on other grounds by State ex rel.
State v. Perkins 78 So. 3d 860 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
(1962), which was abrogated on other grounds by State ex rel.
State of Louisiana v. D. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
So.2d 380, 384 (1962), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: [I]n the absence of a statute of limitations, the State retains the right to prosecute for crimes indefinitely.
State v. D.T. 998 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
(1962), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: [I]n the absence of a statute of limitations, the State retains the right to prosecute for crimes indefinitely.
State v. DT 998 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
(1962), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: [I]n the absence of a statute of limitations, the State retains the right to prosecute for crimes indefinitely.
State Ex Rel. Olivieri v. State 779 So. 2d 735 La. 2001
commission of an act, which retroactively changes the legal consequences of such fact."); , (1962) ("An ex post facto law [is] one enacted after the offense has been committed and which in relation to it or its consequences alters the situation of the accused to his disadvantage.") After viewing this jurisprudence, it is clear that in ex post facto analysis Louisiana courts have broadly
State v. Bilbo 719 So. 2d 1134 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
(1962), the Louisiana Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that the application of a time period for instituting prosecution, which was extended after the commission of the charged offense, violated the ex post facto provisions of the United States and Louisiana Constitutions.
State v. Romero 692 So. 2d 609 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
(1962), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: [I]n the absence of a statute of limitations, the State retains the right to prosecute for crimes indefinitely.
State v. Morgan 686 So. 2d 1048 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
commission of an act, which retroactively changes the legal consequences of such fact."); , (1962) ("An ex post facto law [is] one enacted after the offense has been committed and which in relation to it or its consequences alters the situation of the accused to his disadvantage."); State v. Caldwell, 50 La.
State v. Farris 666 So. 2d 337 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
(1962), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: [I]n the absence of a statute of limitations, the State retains the right to prosecute for crimes indefinitely.
State v. Rolen 662 So. 2d 446 La. 1995
(1962), does not compel a different result.
State Ex Rel. Glover v. State 660 So. 2d 1189 La. 1995
commission of an act, which retroactively changes the legal consequences of such fact."); , (1962) ("An ex post facto law [is] one enacted after the offense has been committed and *1201 which in relation to it or its consequences alters the situation of the accused to his disadvantage."); State v. Caldwell, 50 La.
State v. Sorrell 656 So. 2d 1045 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
506 (1882); Payne v. Nash, 327 F.2d 197 (8th Cir.1964); , (1962); 16A C.J.S.
State v. Hughes 648 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
(1962), the defendant was charged with one count of indecent behavior with juveniles which allegedly occurred on March 26, 1960.
State v. Bennett 454 So. 2d 1165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
(1962), the defendant was charged with indecent behavior with juveniles, the offense occurring on March 26, 1960.
State v. Huntley 438 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
506 (1882); Payne v. Nash, 327 F.2d 197 (8th Cir.1964); , (1962); 16A C.J.S.
State v. Metoyer 427 So. 2d 93 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
506 (1882); Payne v. Nash, 327 F.2d 197 (8th Cir.1964); , (1962); 16A C.J.S.
State v. Williams 358 So. 2d 943 La. 1978
506 (1882); Payne v. Nash, 327 F.2d 197 (8th Cir. 1964); , (1962); 16A C.J.S.
State v. Sepulvado 342 So. 2d 630 La. 1977
The amendment is an ex post facto law, according to the defense, because the amendment "alters the situation of the accused to his disadvantage", a , (1962) and State v. Caldwell, 50 La.Ann.
Nomey v. State 315 So. 2d 709 La. 1975
(1962); State v. Masino, 216 La.
State v. McQueen 308 So. 2d 752 La. 1975
(1962); 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 154, p. 222.
State v. Cleveland 166 So. 2d 267 La. 1964
State v. Fourchy, 106 La.