DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Campbell, 270 So. 2d 506.

21 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. in the Interest of K.S. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
    equires that the constitutionality of a statute be specially pleaded in a petition, exception, written motion, or answer and that the grounds be particularized, so that the parties are given sufficient time to brief and prepare arguments regarding their position on a constitutional question.”); So.2d 506 (1972)(wherein this Court refused to consider grounds of unconstitutionality not raised in the defendant’s Motion to Quash); State v. Herring, 211 La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Willie J. Stevens, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
    See, e.g., State v. 15 Campbell, So.2d 506 (1972) (per curiam); State v. Williams, 08- 1046 (La.App.
  • State ex rel. Arnaud v. State 188 So. 3d 1004 La. 2016
    1/26/96), (recogrrizing that “Louisiana jurisprudence requires that the constitutionality of a statute be specialty pleaded in a petition, exception, written motion, or answer and Aat the grounds be particularized, so that the parties are given sufficient time to brief and prepare arguments regarding their position on a constitutional .question.”); , (1972)(wherein this Court refused to consider grounds of unconstitutionallty not raised in thedefendant's Motion to Quash); State v. Herring, 211 L
  • State ex rel. C.M. 128 So. 3d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    See Schoening, supra, 00-0903 at 4, 770 So.2d at 765 ; Williams v. State, Dept, of Health and Hospitals, 95-0713, p. 6 (La.1/26/96), ; , (1972); State v. Herring, 211 La.
  • State v. Overstreet 111 So. 3d 308 La. 2013
    3, p. 6 (La.1/26/96), (recognizing that “Louisiana jurisprudence requires that the constitutionality of a statute be specially pleaded in a petition, exception, written motion, or answer and that the grounds be particularized, so that the parties are given sufficient time to brief and prepare arguments regarding their position on a constitutional question.”); , (1972)(wherein this Court refused to consider grounds of unconstitutionality not raised in the defendant’s Motion to Quash); State v. He
  • State v. Pugh 12 So. 3d 1085 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    (1972), and State v. Hatton, 2007-2377 (La.7/1/08), .
  • State v. Hatton 985 So. 2d 709 La. 2008
    3, p. 6 (La.1/26/96), (recognizing that "Louisiana jurisprudence requires that the constitutionality of a statute be specially pleaded in a petition, exception, written motion, or answer and that the grounds be particularized, so that the parties are given sufficient time to brief and prepare arguments regarding their position on a constitutional question."); , (1972)(wherein this Court refused to consider grounds of unconstitutionality not raised in the defendant's Motion to Quash); State v. He
  • State v. Thibodeaux 473 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • State v. Joseph 454 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
    art. 756(5); , (1972); State v. Davis, 246 La.
  • State v. Dayton 445 So. 2d 76 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
    To the contrary, however, if the evidence injects an entirely new issue which should have been an important part of the state's case in chief, , (1972), or if it unfairly places extreme weight on a part of the state's evidence which should have been introduced in the case in chief, cf. State v. Davis, 246 La.
  • State v. Perry 408 So. 2d 1358 La. 1982
    To the contrary, however, if the evidence injects an entirely new issue which should have been an important part of the state's case in chief, , (1972), or if it unfairly places extreme weight on a part of the state's evidence which should have been introduced in the case in chief, cf. State v. Davis, 246 La.
  • State v. Gatlin 396 So. 2d 1294 La. 1981
    15:282, , (1972); State v. Davis, 246 La.
  • State v. Wrestle, Inc. 360 So. 2d 831 La. 1978
    (1973); State v. Kavanaugh, 203 La.
  • State v. Hills 354 So. 2d 186 La. 1978
    To the contrary, however, if the evidence injects an entirely new issue which should have been an important part of the state's case in chief, , (1972), or if it unfairly places extreme weight on a part of the state's evidence which should have been introduced in the case in chief, cf. State v. Davis, 246 La.
  • State v. Hatter 350 So. 2d 149 La. 1977
    15:282; State v. Campbell , (1972).
  • State v. Hatter 338 So. 2d 100 La. 1976
    Consistently, , (1972), held that evidence of another crime offered to prove intent is not properly adduced in rebuttal when defendant only denies the commission of the crime for which he is on trial.
  • State v. Turner 337 So. 2d 455 La. 1976
    15:282; , (1972); State v. Davis, 246 La.
  • State v. Snoddy 332 So. 2d 800 La. 1976
    15:282; , (1972); State v. Davis, 246 La.
  • State v. Newton 328 So. 2d 110 La. 1976
    (1972); State v. Broussard, 263 La.
  • State v. Whatley 320 So. 2d 123 La. 1975
    P. art. 765(5); , (1972); State v. Davis, 246 La.
  • State v. Banks 307 So. 2d 594 La. 1975
    15:282; , (1972); State v. Davis, 246 La.