Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hudgins, 400 So. 2d 889.

14 citing documents.

State v. Wilson 138 So. 3d 661 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
893 n. 3 (La.1981) (“It is necessary for the State to establish the value of the property subject to a theft as La.
McNeely v. National Tea Co. 653 So. 2d 1231 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
Thomas v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarket, supra at 995.
Dixon v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc. 638 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
State v. London 586 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Williams 580 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
Thomas v. Schwegmann Giant Supermarket 561 So. 2d 992 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
State v. Jones 551 So. 2d 18 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
West v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 539 So. 2d 1258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (La.App.
Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 525 So. 2d 111 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
State v. Smith 485 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
Loyd v. Howard Bros. Discount Store 469 So. 2d 1080 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
will not be reversed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion.” at 891.
Townsend v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. 466 So. 2d 675 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
State v. Russell 444 So. 2d 271 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
While “anything of value” can be the subject of a theft, the Louisiana Supreme Court, , 893 n. 3 (La.1981), has found proof of value to be an essential element of the charge of theft because the penalty provisions are dependent upon the amount taken.
State Ex Rel. Bailey v. City of West Monroe 418 So. 2d 570 La. 1982