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. Everfield, 342 So. 2d 648.

31 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.T. La. 2020
  • State of Louisiana v. Brandon Newton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Newton 129 So. 3d 11 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
  • State v. Jackson 882 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • State v. Havis 874 So. 2d 153 La. 2004
    1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84 (1966); State v. Davis, 32,379 (La.App.
  • State v. Davis 749 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    the state bears the burden of proving the standards or criteria for the transfer of a juvenile to adult jurisdiction.
  • In Re CB 708 So. 2d 391 La. 1998
    [9] State in the Interest of Hunter, (La.
  • In re C.B. 708 So. 2d 391 La. 1998
    9 See State v. Perique, 43 State in the Interest of Hunter, State ex rel.
  • State v. Wilkerson 704 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
  • State v. Collins 694 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    requires that the state observe the burden of proving the standards or criteria for the transfer of a juvenile to adult jurisdiction.
  • State v. Perique 439 So. 2d 1060 La. 1983
    That decision was based, however, on the "general rule" of non-criminal treatment for juveniles: Because it is implicit in the juvenile court scheme that non-criminal treatment is to be the rule, and that adult criminal treatment is the exception which must be governed by the particular factors of individual cases, the waiver of jurisdiction is a critically important action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile which may be taken only after a hearing that measures up to
  • State v. Leach 425 So. 2d 1232 La. 1983
  • Civil Service Commission v. Guste 420 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
  • State v. Foy 401 So. 2d 948 La. 1981
  • State v. Petrovich 396 So. 2d 1318 La. 1981
  • State v. Hunter 389 So. 2d 390 La. 1980
    this Court first noted the review by the United States Supreme Court of the procedures used in waiving juvenile court jurisdiction under a statute of the District of Columbia.
  • State, in Interest of Hunter 387 So. 2d 1086 La. 1980
    Because it is implicit in the juvenile court scheme that non-criminal treatment is to be the rule, and that adult criminal treatment is the exception which must be governed by the particular factors of individual cases, the waiver of jurisdiction is a critically important action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile which may be taken only after a hearing that measures up to the
  • State, in Interest of Bruno 388 So. 2d 784 La. 1980
  • State ex rel. Johnson 382 So. 2d 957 La. 1980
    *959 Earlier, we held that Louisiana’s juvenile transfer statute does not contravene the due process guidelines contained in Kent and in some instances goes beyond those requirements in protecting juvenile’s rights.
  • Bazley v. Tortorich 380 So. 2d 727 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
    Succession of Robins, supra
  • State v. Rodriguez 379 So. 2d 1084 La. 1980
  • Perez v. Continental Cas. Co. 367 So. 2d 1284 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
    Succession of Robins, supra
  • State ex rel. Davis v. Criminal District Court 368 So. 2d 1092 La. 1979
  • Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist. No. 2 366 So. 2d 1381 La. 1978
    Succession of Robins, supra
  • State v. Chrisman 364 So. 2d 906 La. 1978
    Thus bearing in mind the basic presumption that legislative enactments are constitutional, and considering the extant conflicts in the scientific community as to the effects of marijuana use, as illustrated by the testimony of the two expert witnesses in this case, we cannot say that the legislature had no rational or reasonable basis for proscribing the substance to protect the public health, sa
  • State ex rel. Allen 362 So. 2d 1115 La. 1978
    A(4); State In the Interest of Smith
  • State ex rel. Smith 359 So. 2d 1271 La. 1978
    a sixteen-year-old youth accused of armed robbery was transferred to the district court and there received a 6V2 year sentence after pleading guilty to the crime charged.
  • State v. LaBauve 359 So. 2d 181 La. 1978
    (decided April 10, 1977)
  • State v. Skinner 358 So. 2d 280 La. 1978
    State v. Everfield, La., (1977); State v. Newton, La., (1976).
  • State v. Blouin 352 So. 2d 1283 La. 1977
    1 1 , because the trial court neither conducted a meaningful transfer hearing at which evidence and/or arguments were entertained as per 13:1571.1(4) concerning whether defendant was amenable to treatment or rehabilitation through facilities available to juvenile court, nor stated “reasons for judgment with sufficient particularity to insure meaningful review by this Court.” 2
  • State v. Hall 350 So. 2d 141 La. 1977
    we held that the due process requirement of access by defense counsel to all social, probation and other reports relevant to the issue of transfer or considered by the court in making its determination is a procedural safeguard implicitly embodies in our transfer statute.