DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Brown, 389 So. 2d 48.

31 citing documents.

  • State Ex Rel. Dm 80 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
  • State ex rel. of D.M. 80 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State v. Watts 41 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In support of his argument, citing a passage from Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250-251 , 72 S.Ct.
  • State of Louisiana v. Cody Lacombe La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
    a case in which we construed a statute prohibiting possession of certain controlled substances to require proof of criminal intent, we stated: “(w)e observe the familiar proposition that ‘(t)he existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of A
  • State v. LaCombe 25 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    a case in which we construed a statute prohibiting possession of certain controlled substances to require proof of criminal intent, we stated: “(w)e observe the familiar proposition that ‘(t)he existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal ju
  • State v. Henry 966 So. 2d 692 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    quoting Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 , 71 S.Ct.
  • State v. Ingram 888 So. 2d 923 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
  • State v. Powdrill 684 So. 2d 350 La. 1996
  • State v. White 674 So. 2d 1018 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    State v. Baxley, 94-2982 (La.
  • State v. Baxley 656 So. 2d 973 La. 1995
  • State v. Larson 653 So. 2d 1158 La. 1995
  • State v. Domangue 649 So. 2d 1034 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Baxley 633 So. 2d 142 La. 1994
  • State v. Peart 621 So. 2d 780 La. 1993
    E.g., Groppi v. Wisconsin, 400 U.S. 505 , 91 S.Ct.
  • Talley v. Succession of Stuckey 614 So. 2d 55 La. 1993
  • State v. Ritchie 590 So. 2d 1139 La. 1991
    (the statute prohibiting possession of pentazocine impliedly requires knowledge by the accused of the nature of the substance possessed, since a contrary interpretation would offend principles of due process).
  • City of Baton Rouge v. Schmieder 582 So. 2d 1266 La. 1991
  • State v. Azar 535 So. 2d 441 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • CONCERNED BUS. & PROP. OWN. OF DeSOTO, INC. v. DeSOTO PARISH SCH. BD. 528 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
    24:175; State ex rel Kemp v. City of Baton Rouge, 215 La.
  • State v. Pierre 500 So. 2d 382 La. 1987
  • State v. McKeel 443 So. 2d 753 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Williams 400 So. 2d 575 La. 1981
    State v. Taylor, supra; State v. McCoy, supra
  • State v. Bias 400 So. 2d 650 La. 1981
    a case in which we construed a statute prohibiting possession of certain controlled substances to require proof of criminal intent, we stated: "[w]e observe the familiar proposition that `[t]he existence of a mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal ju
  • State v. Taylor 396 So. 2d 1278 La. 1981
  • State v. McMahon 391 So. 2d 1120 La. 1980
  • State v. McCoy 395 So. 2d 319 La. 1980
    "the `vicious will' has been replaced with less colorful descriptions of the mental state required for a criminal act; nevertheless, intent generally remains an indispensable element of a criminal offense".
  • State v. Shiloh 393 So. 2d 726 La. 1980
  • State v. Almore 393 So. 2d 726 La. 1980
  • State v. Spaulding 393 So. 2d 726 La. 1980
  • State v. Carter 393 So. 2d 727 La. 1980
  • State v. Isaac 393 So. 2d 726 La. 1980