Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Lindsey, 491 So. 2d 371.

16 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Nicolva A. Harmon La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State v. Trung Le 188 So. 3d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
(“ ‘[P]rima facie evidence’ is generally defined by statute as that which suffices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence.
State v. Davis 134 So. 3d 1257 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Deluzain 38 So. 3d 1054 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
the Supreme Court concluded that the presumption provided for in La.
State v. Caruso 733 So. 2d 1169 La. 1999
State v. Washington 700 So. 2d 1068 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
The statute, establishes a permissive presumption allowing, but not requiring, the trier of fact to find that the defendant possessed the intent to defraud based upon proof of the notification of nonpayment by certified mail and failure to pay within 10 days.
Day v. Delchamps, Inc. 694 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross 654 So. 2d 1311 La. 1995
citing County Court of Ulster County v. Allen, 442 U.S. 140, 157-158 , 99 S.Ct.
Explained State Ex Rel. Mims v. Butler 601 So. 2d 649 La. 1992
State v. Bond 584 So. 2d 1212 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
State v. Spooner 520 So. 2d 336 La. 1988
See, Francis v. Franklin, 471 U.S. 307, 315-18 , 105 S.Ct.
State v. Delatte 506 So. 2d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
1068 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970)
State v. Spooner 505 So. 2d 230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Redfearn 504 So. 2d 1005 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
State v. Tullier 504 So. 2d 1001 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
The presumption created in 14:71
State v. Lester 502 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
the Supreme Court examined this statutory presumption and characterized it as “permissive.” The court defined a permissive presumption as “one which allows, but does not require, the finder of fact to infer the fact which is an element of the crime from the basic fact that has been proven.” The court furthe