Cited by

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

82 citing documents.

State v. Espejel 867 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
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. Mulvihill 860 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
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 *268 which do not go to the merits of the charge.
State v. Walker 853 So. 2d 746 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
P. art. 531-534; State v. Thomas, 28,790 (La.App.2d Cir.10/30/96), , writ denied, 96-2844 (La.4/25/97), .
State v. Dufrene 846 So. 2d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
The only issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in granting the Defendant’s motion because she was a the 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. Hair 784 So. 2d 1269 La. 2001
State v. Groce 786 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. Jordan 774 So. 2d 267 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
the 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. Dean 748 So. 2d 57 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
State v. Schwehm 729 So. 2d 548 La. 1999
State v. Schwehm 713 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Inchaustequi 700 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
the 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. Thomas 683 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
BD. OF COM'RS OF ORLEANS LEVEE DISTRICT v. Connick 654 So. 2d 1073 La. 1995
State v. Green 647 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
State v. Deville 644 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
In support of this contention, defendant relies on the Supreme Court’s : “Before a public official can be charged with malfeasance in office, there must be a statute or provision of law which delineates an affirmative duty upon the official.
State v. DeJesus 642 So. 2d 854 La. 1994
State v. Davis 634 So. 2d 1168 La. 1994
State v. Kelley, 241 La.
State v. Coker 625 So. 2d 190 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
Later, Justice Dixon again noted that, in some cases, certain duties are "inherent in the nature of the office."
State v. Robertson 615 So. 2d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
State v. Davis 614 So. 2d 270 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
State v. Barnes 592 So. 2d 1352 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
State v. Hessler 570 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Perret 563 So. 2d 459 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State v. Alexis 562 So. 2d 957 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
State in Interest of JAV 558 So. 2d 214 La. 1990
-740 (La.1985); State v. Gerstenberger, 260 La.
State v. Valdes 547 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
which states that LSA-C.Cr.P.
State v. Guillory 544 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Jones 544 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Authement 532 So. 2d 869 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Sacco 527 So. 2d 471 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
The nature and scope of a -740 (La.1985).
State v. Beauchamp 510 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Allo 510 So. 2d 14 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1987