Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Womack, 283 So. 2d 708.

38 citing documents.

State v. Ohrberg 448 So. 2d 1316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Johnson 406 So. 2d 153 La. 1981
State v. Landry 384 So. 2d 786 La. 1980
State v. Muse 363 So. 2d 462 La. 1978
15:432 and suggested legislative attention to the problems, but in Searle , the court said the statute was not unconstitutional on its face
State v. Taylor 363 So. 2d 699 La. 1978
State v. Williams 362 So. 2d 530 La. 1978
State v. Coleman 358 So. 2d 289 La. 1978
State v. Hardy 344 So. 2d 1018 La. 1977
State v. Jones 340 So. 2d 563 La. 1976
See State v. Womack, La., (1973); State v. Cormier, La., (1973); State v. Franklin, 263 La.
State v. Searle 339 So. 2d 1194 La. 1976
754 , 13 L.Ed.2d 658 (1965)
State v. Montoya 340 So. 2d 557 La. 1976
15:432 insofar as it is used to create a presumption of theft (rather than armed robbery or burglary) has been affirmed, and although, as we noted in Searle , we have some misgivings as to its continued constitutional vitality, and urge the legislature to reconsider its wisdom, we are not compelled to decide, in the present case, whether the presumption is unconstitutional on its face under the test we announced in State v. S
State v. Johnson 333 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
held that when a tangible object is sought to be excluded from evidence because of an unconstitutional search and seizure, the defendant must timely file a motion to suppress the evidence.
State v. Keys 328 So. 2d 154 La. 1976
Art. 703, Official Revision Comment (d); State v. Womack, La., (1973); State v. Wallace, 254 La.
State v. Knight 323 So. 2d 765 La. 1975
State v. Nix 327 So. 2d 301 La. 1975
art. 484; State v. Bourg, 248 La.
State v. Curry 319 So. 2d 917 La. 1975
State v. Monk 315 So. 2d 727 La. 1975
State v. Nicholas 312 So. 2d 856 La. 1975
and the cases cited there.
State v. Ivy 307 So. 2d 587 La. 1975
See State v. Davis, La., (1973); State v. Womack, La., (1973); and the cases therein cited.
State v. McGloster 303 So. 2d 739 La. 1974
State v. Clark 305 So. 2d 457 La. 1974
State v. Peters 302 So. 2d 888 La. 1974
State v. Carter 301 So. 2d 612 La. 1974
This Court has previously rejected the identical contention in State v. Womack, La., (1973) and State v. McQueen, La., (1973).
State v. Vince 305 So. 2d 916 La. 1974
Art. 484 ; State v. Womack, La., (1973); 12 La.L.Rev.
State v. McKinney 302 So. 2d 917 La. 1974
1974) and the numerous cases cited there.
Followed State v. Daniel 297 So. 2d 417 La. 1974
See State v. Davis, La., (1973); State v. Womack, La., (1973), and the cases therein cited.
State v. Devall 296 So. 2d 802 La. 1974
See State v. Womack, La., (1973).
Followed State v. Veal 296 So. 2d 262 La. 1974
See State v. Womack, La., (1973).
State v. Nelson 296 So. 2d 295 La. 1974
Followed State v. Walker 296 So. 2d 310 La. 1974
See State v. Womack, La., (1973).
State v. West 292 So. 2d 196 La. 1974
The persuasive arguments made by counsel for the male defendant have repeatedly been rejected by a majority of this court
Criticized State v. Washington 292 So. 2d 234 La. 1974
State v. Witherspoon 292 So. 2d 499 La. 1974
Criticized State v. Washington 292 So. 2d 234 La. 1974
State v. Stevenson 292 So. 2d 488 La. 1974
As we noted recently in State v. Womack, La., (1973), the United States Supreme Court is the arbiter of federal constitutional questions for state courts under our dual system.
State v. Brown 288 So. 2d 339 La. 1974
See State v. Womack, La., (1973) and the numerous cases cited.
State v. Edwards 287 So. 2d 518 La. 1973
State v. Davis 284 So. 2d 896 La. 1973