Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. McCoy, 395 So. 2d 319.
-
State v. Ruiz
931 So. 2d 472
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
City of New Orleans v. White, 78 So.
-
State of Louisiana v. Gregory John Ruiz
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
City of New Orleans v. White, 78 So.
-
State v. Shapiro
751 So. 2d 337
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
the court discussed the test on the constitutionality of a statute when the defendant is arguing a vagueness problem: Words used in statutes need not have the same precision as mathematical symbols.
- State v. Caruso 733 So. 2d 1169 La. 1999
- State v. Boyd 710 So. 2d 1074 La. 1998
-
State v. Giovengo
692 So. 2d 462
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
the court discussed the test on the constitutionality of a statute when the defendant is arguing a vagueness problem: Words used in statutes need not have the same precision as mathematical symbols.
-
State v. Powdrill
684 So. 2d 350
La. 1996
Const. art. 1 § 2; (reh'g denied).
-
State v. Cohen
549 So. 2d 884
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
the Louisiana Supreme Court addressed a question of constitutionality of a statute where the defendant had asserted vagueness, stating: "Words used in statutes need not have the same precision as mathematical symbols.
- State v. Lindsey 491 So. 2d 371 La. 1986
-
State v. Tuscano
492 So. 2d 67
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
City of New Orleans v. White, 78 So.
-
City of Bossier v. Gray
483 So. 2d 1090
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
courthouses ...” (emphasis added) Rejecting this contention, the court stated: “The terms ‘obstruct’ and ‘unreasonably interfere’ plainly require no guessing at their meaning.” considered defendant’s assertion that La.R.S.
-
State v. Jones
481 So. 2d 598
La. 1986
Francis v. Franklin , above
-
State v. Bertrand
461 So. 2d 1159
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
367 (1952); State v. Cannon, supra; (La.
- State v. McKeel 452 So. 2d 1171 La. 1984
- State v. Holmes 451 So. 2d 1175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
-
State v. McKeel
443 So. 2d 753
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
367 (1952); State v. Cannon, supra
- State v. Davis 430 So. 2d 680 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
- Overruled State v. Thompson 399 So. 2d 1161 La. 1981
- State v. Williams 400 So. 2d 575 La. 1981
-
State v. Prestridge
399 So. 2d 564
La. 1981
367 (1952); State v. Cannon, supra; see also
-
State v. Brown
398 So. 2d 1381
La. 1981
has defined prima facie evidence as evidence sufficient to establish a given fact which if not rebutted or contradicted will remain sufficient.
- State v. Taylor 396 So. 2d 1278 La. 1981
- State v. Ross 404 So. 2d 440 La. 1981
- State v. Gutter 393 So. 2d 700 La. 1981