Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bennett, 610 So. 2d 120.

28 citing documents.

State of Louisiana Versus Marlon a Sagastume La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
art. 580 provides that the filing of a motion to quash suspends the limitations period only until the court has ruled on the motion, because the parties have pursued review in the court of appeal and here, the limitations period has been suspended pending finality of this review.”); (La.
Succession of Edward A. Horrell, Sr. . La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Matthew Tyler Hayes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
10/14/15), (footnote omitted), our supreme court, relying in part on basic Civil Code concepts regarding the interpretation of statutes, stated: Legislation is the solemn expression of legislative will; thus, the interpretation of legislation is primarily the search for the legislative intent.
State of Louisiana Versus Jarrod Dempster La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
State of Louisiana v. Alex Hayes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
10/14/15), n.2 ( explained that: “Basic Civil Code concepts regarding interpretation of statutes are applicable to interpreting the Criminal Code.” Thus, and before turning to consideration of the wording of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedures articles at issue in Griffin, the supreme court referenced the fundamental
State v. Hayes 211 So. 3d 520 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
10/14/15), , 1267 n.2 ( explained that: “Basic Civil Code concepts regarding interpretation of *525 statutes are applicable to interpreting the Criminal Code.” Thus, and before turning to consideration of the wording of Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedures articles at issue in Griffin , the supreme court referenced the fundamenta
State of Louisiana v. Jessie M. Griffin, II 180 So. 3d 1262 La. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Sherman R. Bell, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Duncan 91 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Parish of Jefferson v. Kennedy 28 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2009
State v. Houston 954 So. 2d 311 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
State v. Odom 941 So. 2d 24 La. 2006
See State v. Washington, 02-1346, pp. 4-6 (La.5/20/03), -27
State v. Williams 893 So. 2d 7 La. 2004
State v. Shepherd 839 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
3245, 3250 , 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982)); ("When the literal construction of a statute produces absurd or unreasonable results, the letter must give way to the spirit of the law and the statute construed so as to produce *1111 a reasonable result.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
State v. Cotton 818 So. 2d 968 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Shell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 782 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
Louisiana Mun. Ass'n v. State 773 So. 2d 663 La. 2000
For example, this court concluded there was an obvious legislative oversight in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding finality of judgments, since the Code did not contain any reference to applications for certiorari to this court.
State v. Alford 770 So. 2d 358 La. 2000
Judgment of the court of appeal is set aside —
State v. Branch 759 So. 2d 31 La. 2000
art. 922(D); -26 (La.1992) (judgment of court of appeal does not become final until this Court has taken final action on a timely filed writ to review that action).
State v. Brocato 744 So. 2d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
A where the Supreme Court determined when the time began to run in the granting of a new trial by an appellate court.
Broussard v. FA Richard & Associates, Inc. 732 So. 2d 578 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
Marie, 98-1167 (La.12/18/98)
State v. Ste. Marie 723 So. 2d 407 La. 1998
3245, 3250 , 73 L.Ed.2d 973 (1982)); ("When the literal construction of a statute produces absurd or unreasonable results, the letter must give way to the spirit of the law and the statute construed so as to produce a reasonable result.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
State v. Antoine 721 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
[2] for an application of these basic Civil Code concepts in the interpretation of a statute from the Louisiana Criminal Code.
State v. Harris 694 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Thibodeaux 648 So. 2d 48 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
|3 where the supreme court permitted the engrafting of provisions of the Code of Civü Procedure onto the Code of Criminal Procedure.
State v. Williams 631 So. 2d 1370 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
If the prescriptive period has expired, the court shall dismiss the indictment upon motion of the defendant, and there shall be no further prosecution against the defendant for that criminal conduct; art. 581; (La.
In re Carr 620 So. 2d 828 La. 1993
State v. Bennett 617 So. 2d 550 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993