DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pullin v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n, 484 So. 2d 105.

17 citing documents.

  • Theophilus Roland, Jr. v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections La. 2025
    In Pullin v. Louisiana State Racing Comm’n, (La.
  • Rodney Crayton v. Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
  • City of Alexandria v. Kendall Dixon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    State Racing Comm’n, ], the test results are admissible subject to whatever the weight the Board may choose to assign to the test results.
  • City of Alexandria v. Dixon 228 So. 3d 1284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
    5/3/16), , the supreme court issued an opinion, reversing this court’s décision disallowing consideration of the test results, and stated.as follows: Although we also find the City did not adhere to its own Substance Abuse Policy and thus reverse that-finding by the trial court, we nevertheless determine that, based on Pullin [v. Louisiana State Racing Comm’n, *1286 (La.1986) ], the test results are admissible subject to whatever the weight the Board may choose to assign to the.test results.
  • City of Alexandria v. Kendall Dixon 196 So. 3d 592 La. 2016
    Specifically finding the exclusionary rule does not apply in Civil Service hearings and employing the balancing test employed in Pullin v. Louisiana State Racing Comm’n, (La.
  • Holmes v. Louisiana State Board of Nursing 156 So. 3d 183 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    .2d at 797 (holding that driver’s license suspension provision of Louisiana’s Implied Consent law is remedial in nature and does not constitute a second punishment for the same offense in violation of double jeopardy); (finding that double jeopardy did not apply to disciplinary proceedings against a judge); -106 (La.1986) (characterizing a proceeding before the Louisiana State Racing Commission that resulted in suspension of a racing license as civil); Allen v. Louisiana State Bd.
  • Mia Skinner v. City of Natchitoches La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    We find this assignment of error to be without merit based on Pullin v. Louisiana State Racing Comm’n
  • George v. Department of Fire 637 So. 2d 1097 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1994
    the Louisiana Supreme Court considered the issue of whether illegally-obtained evidence would still be admissible in a civil administrative proceeding.
  • Phelps v. LOUISIANA STATE RACING COM'N 611 So. 2d 739 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    4:141; Plaintiff argues that Holthus should be overruled.
  • Butler v. DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS 609 So. 2d 790 La. 1992
    4th Cir.1992) (double jeopardy does not attach to administrative proceedings which could result in the suspension of a dentist's license); (double jeopardy not apply to disciplinary proceedings against a judge); (racing license revocation proceeding was characterized as civil); (La.App.
  • Allen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Dentistry 603 So. 2d 238 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
    1987) where the court held that double jeopardy does not apply to disciplinary proceedings against a where the exclusionary rule was inapplicable to a license revocation proceeding characterized as civil.
  • Holthus v. LOUISIANA STATE RACING COM'N 580 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
  • Caracci v. Louisiana State Racing Com'n 556 So. 2d 1249 La. 1990
  • Matter of Mullins & Pritchard, Inc. 549 So. 2d 872 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • Allen v. State Bd. of Dentistry 543 So. 2d 908 La. 1989
  • Laborde v. Louisiana State Racing Commission 537 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • Allen v. Louisiana State Bd. of Dentistry 531 So. 2d 787 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    our Supreme Court using the Janis analysis, refused to apply the exclusionary rule in an administrative hearing where the deterrent value of the rule's application was outweighed by the social costs attendant to the exclusion of the evidence.