Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Perez, 464 So. 2d 737.

82 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Keith Johnson La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Merlin P. Dejean La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
State Of Louisiana v. David Klump La. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Evan Bradford La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana v. Ryan Chapman Writ Granted; Judgment Reversed; Remanded. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2023
5 The standard that this Court must follow and apply to any Motion to Quash is recited in State v. Perez [ (La.
State of Louisiana v. Donald Alan Crooks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Nathaniel Rhashawn Trahan La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
-40 (La.1985), the supreme court discussed the nature of a motion to quash: The motion to quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charge.
State Of Louisiana v. Ronald Robinson, Et Al. La. 2021
State of Louisiana v. Louis Barnes La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
State v. Alexcee 262 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Perez , , 741 (La.
State of Louisiana v. Leslie C. Thompson La. 2017
State v. Lee 208 So. 3d 492 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Woodrow Karey, Jr. AKA Woodrow Karey, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
Despite the lack of direct statutory relief, held that “[t]he motion to quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charge.” Additionally, in State v. Franklin, 13-1489, p. 9 (La.App.
State v. Karey 180 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Despite the lack of direct statutory relief, held that “[t]he motion to' quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charge.” Additionally, in State v. Franklin, 13-1489, p. 9 (La.App.
State v. Ferguson 176 So. 3d 449 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Later, Justice Dixon again noted that, in some cases, certain duties are “inherent in the nature of the office.” Similarly, the state contends that La.R.S.
State v. Thompson 163 So. 3d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Khanh H. Nguyen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
-40 (La.1985), the supreme court discussed the nature of a motion to quash and stated the following: The motion to quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charge.
State v. Nguyen 150 So. 3d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
-40 (La.1985), the supreme court discussed the nature of a motion to quash and stated the following: The motion to quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charge.
State v. Faggin 150 So. 3d 298 La. 2014
While evidence may be adduced, such may not include a defense on the merits.”
State v. Godchaux 132 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Marcelin 131 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
State v. Franklin 126 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
State v. Clark 117 So. 3d 1246 La. 2013
State v. Petitto 116 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Guillott 155 So. 3d 551 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The question is not “of factual guilt or innocence of the offense charged.”
State of Louisiana v. Christopher S. Perry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Perry 101 So. 3d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Miller 102 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Harris 79 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
14:134(1) and 14:134(2) presuppose the existence of "a statute or provision of the law which delineates an affirmative duty upon the official.” State v. Schwehm, 98-1599 (La.3/19/99), .
State v. Lewis 75 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 531-534; -40 (La.1985).
State v. Jones 47 So. 3d 1096 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
Louisiana State Board of Nursing v. Gautreaux 39 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Board of Commissioners of Orleans Levee *815 District v. Connick, 94-3161 (La.3/9/95), ( ).
State v. Petitto 35 So. 3d 1100 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
14:134(1) and 14:134(2) presuppose the existence of “a statute or provision of the law which delineates an affirmative duty upon the official.” This duty “must be expressly imposed by law upon the official because the official is entitled to know exactly what conduct is expected of him in his official capacity and what conduct will subject him to criminal charges.”
State v. Hendry 996 So. 2d 352 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
a district attorney and district judge were charged with malfeasance and conspiracy to commit malfeasance.
State v. Armstard 991 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
179 , 142 L.Ed.2d 146 (1998); State v. Carter, 42,894 (La.App.
State v. Boyte 973 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
2 Cir. 3/3/04), , State v. Schwehm, 98-1599 (La.3/19/99), .
State of Louisiana v. James Manuel Turnbo La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
5 Cir. 10/28/03), -68, an appeal by the state from the granting of a motion to quash, the court explained the use of the motion to quash: the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the nature of a motion to quash and stated: The motion to quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charg
State v. Turnbo 966 So. 2d 1220 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
5 Cir. 10/28/03), -68 , an appeal by the state from the granting of a motion to quash, the court explained the use of the motion to quash: the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the nature of a motion to quash and stated: The motion to quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charge.
State of Louisiana v. Michael Gordon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
-40 (La.1985) (citations omitted); see also, State v. Corbett, 04-1124, (La.
STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS AMANDA GUTWEILER AKA AMANDA HYPES La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State v. Gutweiler 940 So. 2d 160 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
State of Louisiana v. Donald Cogswell, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Kelley, 241 La.
State v. Cogswell 918 So. 2d 590 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Kelley, 241 La.
State of Louisiana v. M.J.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 10/28/03), -68, an appeal by the state from the granting of a motion to quash, the court explained the use of the motion to quash: the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the nature of a motion to quash and stated: The motion to quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charge.
State v. M.J.S. 916 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
5 Cir. 10/28/03), -68 , an appeal by the state from the granting of a motion to quash, the court explained the use of the motion to quash: the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the nature of a motion to quash and stated: The motion to quash is essentially a mechanism by which to raise pre-trial pleas of defense, i.e., those matters which do not go to the merits of the charge.
State v. MJS 916 So. 2d 1215 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
App. 5 Cir. 10/28/03), -68 , an appeal by the state from the granting of a motion to quash, the court explained the use of the motion to quash: (La.
State v. Gordon 896 So. 2d 1053 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
In re Under Investigation Grand Jury No. 1 875 So. 2d 33 La. 2004
“The district attorney has entire charge and control of every criminal prosecution instituted or pending in his district and determines whom, when and how he shall prosecute.”
State v. Advanced Recycling, Inc. 870 So. 2d 984 La. 2004