Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Savoie, 637 So. 2d 408.

21 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Leonard Cardenas, III 145 So. 3d 362 La. 2014
Cardenas , 13-0509 at 7 (“ ‘Our observation that the clarity of these laws, as amended, leaves much to be desired.’ ”) (quoting State v. Savoie, 92-1586, p. 2 (La.5/23/94), ).
City of Lafayette v. Sam B. Wofford, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
City of Lafayette v. Wofford 84 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The supreme court, observing the “convoluted nature” of La.R.S 44:9 and its related statutes, has noted “that [o]ur observation that the clarity of these laws, as amended, leaves much to be desired is an understatement.” Expunged Record (No.) 249,044, 03-1940, p. 6 (La.7/2/04), (quoting State v. Savoie, 92-1586, 93-1955, p. 1 (La.5/23/94), ).
State v. Gerchow 987 So. 2d 897 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
State v. Tillman 969 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
In 1994, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted the distinction between “destruction” and "expungement.” State v. Savoie, 92-1586 (La.5/23/94), .
State v. Daniel 903 So. 2d 644 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
44:9(E)(1)(a); State v. Expunged Record No. 249,044, XXXX-XXXX (La.7/2/04), ; State v. Savoie, 92-1586 (La.5/23/94), .
State v. EXPUNGED RECORD NO. 249,044 881 So. 2d 104 La. 2004
44:9, and related statutes, this court noted in State v. Savoie, 92-1586, 93-1955 (La.5/23/94), , that "( o )ur observation that the clarity of these laws, as amended, leaves much to be desired is an understatement."
State v. M.K.O. 833 So. 2d 1265 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
2 The Louisiana Supreme Court, in its 1994 ruling in State v. Savoie, 92-1586 (La.5/24/94), , distinguished expungement of the public’s access to an arrest record from destruction of that record.
State v. EXPUNGED RECORD NUMBER 249,044 833 So. 2d 553 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
In State v. Savoie, 92-1586, 93-1955, p. 3 (La.5/23/94); , the supreme court held "that the word `expungement' is distinct from the word `destruction' and that the two words cannot be used interchangeably or to mean the same thing.
State ex rel. Vincent v. State 712 So. 2d 860 La. 1998
44:9(B); State v. Savoie, 92-1586 (La.5/23/94), .
State ex rel. Wiklund v. State 706 So. 2d 440 La. 1997
State ex rel. Alexander v. State 701 So. 2d 142 La. 1997
State ex rel. Davis v. State 699 So. 2d 78 La. 1997
State ex rel. Lay v. State 693 So. 2d 787 La. 1997
State ex rel. Harris v. State 687 So. 2d 392 La. 1997
State ex rel. Dennis v. 16th Judicial District Court 678 So. 2d 539 La. 1996
State ex rel. Rouchon v. Lensing 661 So. 2d 1370 La. 1995
States ex rel. Charles v. 32nd Judicial District Court, Parish of Terrebonne 661 So. 2d 455 La. 1995
State ex rel. White v. State 661 So. 2d 456 La. 1995
State ex rel. Johnson v. State 648 So. 2d 381 La. 1994
The district court is directed to review relator’s
State ex rel. Williams v. Claiborne Parish Sheriff Department 647 So. 2d 1100 La. 1994