Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 654 So. 2d 1311.

30 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Joshua Jerome Ball La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94- 0695 (La.4/28/95), United States v. Brazell, 489 F.3d 666 (5th Cir.2007).
State v. Ball 209 So. 3d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4/28/95), ; *810 United States v. Brazell, 489 F.3d 666 (5th Cir.2007).
State v. Stanley 161 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), ; United States v. Brazell, 489 F.3d 666 (5th Cir.2007).
State v. Staden 154 So. 3d 579 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), .
State v. Balentine 119 So. 3d 979 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
A continuous offense has been defined by the state supreme court as “a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set in motion by a single impulse and operated by uninterrupted force.” City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), .
State of Louisiana v. Anthony Daye La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
4/28/95), the supreme court described the ―same evidence‖ test as a focus ―upon the actual physical and testimonial evidence necessary to secure a conviction.‖ The supreme court further stated that ―under the ‗same evidence‘ test our concern is with the ‗evidential focus‘ of the facts adduced at trial in light of the
Perez v. Evenstar, Inc. 108 So. 3d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
8 , citing Chief Justice Calogero’s concurrence in City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), , 1327: “The distinction between supervisory and appellate jurisdiction is a continuation of existing terminology, ‘supervisory’ referring to the court’s discretionary jurisdiction under which it has the power to select the cases it will hear, and ‘appellate’ contemplating cases in which a party as a matter of right c
State ex rel. G.E. 94 So. 3d 863 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), , the court stated that the “same evidence” test focuses upon the actual physical and testimonial evidence necessary to secure a conviction.
Johnson v. Mayo 953 So. 2d 930 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), ; Bush ex rel.
Unwired Telecom v. Parish of Calcasieu 903 So. 2d 392 La. 2005
[8] As Chief Justice Calogero pointed out in his concurring opinion in City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), : The distinction between supervisory and appellate jurisdiction [in the 1974 Constitution] is a continuation of existing terminology, "supervisory" referring to the court's discretionary jurisdiction under which it has the power to select the cases it will hear, and "appellate" contemplating cases in which a party as
GREATER NEW ORLEANS EXPRESSWAY v. Olivier 860 So. 2d 22 La. 2003
As Chief Justice Calogero points out in his concurring opinion in City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), : "The distinction between supervisory and appellate jurisdiction [in the 1974 Constitution] is a continuation of existing terminology, `supervisory' referring to the court's discretionary jurisdiction under which it has the power to select the cases it will hear, and `appellate' contemplating cases in which a party a
State v. Armstead 832 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
The Louisiana Supreme Court in City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), , 1345 stated: (La.App.
LA ELECTORATE OF GAYS & LESBIANS, INC. v. State 806 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Instructive of the actual significance of the quoted portion of the opinion in Church Point, supra, is the reference to Church Point's proposition regarding appellate jurisdiction, as explained by the supreme court two (2) years later in City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La/ 4/28/95); by Chief Justice Calogero, writing for the majority and authoring a separate concurrence, the latter being quoted herein: This Court has also, however, limited the application of Article V, § 5(F)'s "supplement
Louisiana Electorate of Gays & Lesbians, Inc. v. State 806 So. 2d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
Instructive of the actual significance of the quoted portion of the opinion in Church Point, supra, is the reference to Church Point’s proposition regarding appellate jurisdiction, as explained by the supreme court two (2) years later in City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La/ 4/28/95); by Chief Justice Calogero, writing for the majority and authoring a separate concurrence, the latter being quoted herein: 17This Court has also, however, limited the application of Article V, § 5(F)’s “suppleme
State Ex Rel. Olivieri v. State 779 So. 2d 735 La. 2001
[29] In City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), , we defined the police power as "[t]he power vested in the legislature to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances ...
State v. Muralles 802 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695, pp. 17-19 (La.4/28/95), -1323 , -608 (La.1990); State v. Knowles, supra
State v. Baptiste 759 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
In City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695, p. 16 n. 13 (La.4/28/95), , 1321 n. 13, the Supreme Court defined a “continuous offense” as “a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set in motion by a single impulse and operated by uninterrupted force.” The Court opined that a “continuous offense,” which involves a single criminal “impulse,” might produce criminal consequences over a lo
State ex rel. R.T. 748 So. 2d 1256 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), -1331 , Calogero, C.J., concurring.
MERRITT McDONALD v. PARISH OF EAST BATON 742 So. 2d 564 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
City of Baton Rouge v. Williams, 95-0308, pp. 3-4 (La.10/16/95), ; City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 at 10 (La.4/28/95), ; City of New Orleans, 93-0690 at 7-8, 640 So.2d at 243-244 .
State v. Jones 731 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
In City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695, p. 16 n. 13 (La.4/28/95), , 1321 n. 13, the Supreme Court defined a "continuous offense" as "a continuous, unlawful act or series of acts set in motion by a single impulse and operated *395 by uninterrupted force."
State v. Muschkat 706 So. 2d 429 La. 1998
The State bases this argument on Chief Justice Calogero's concurrence in City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/85), .
La. Associated Gen. Contracters, Inc. v. No Aviation Bd. 701 So. 2d 130 La. 1997
See also City of Baton Rouge v. Blakeley, 96-1742 (La.9/9/97), ; State v. Saizan, 96-1340 (La.4/8/97), ; City of Baton Rouge v. Williams, 95-0308 (La.10/16/95), ; City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), ; City of New Orleans v. Board of Com'rs of Orleans Levee Dist., 93-0690 (La.7/5/94), .
City of Baton Rouge v. Knox 697 So. 2d 262 La. 1997
City of Baton Rouge v. Goings, 95-2542 (La.12/13/96), ; City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95), .
State v. Saizan 692 So. 2d 1045 La. 1997
Commenting on this article, we stated in City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695 (La.4/28/95); : In City of New Orleans [v. Board of Com'rs, 93-0690 (La.7/5/94); ], we concluded that Article VI, § 4 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1974 provided not only that those Home Rule Charter governments [like the City-Parish government of Baton Rouge] existing prior to our 1974 constitution retained the po
Brown v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF PUB. SAF. 680 So. 2d 1179 La. 1996
4/28/95), (Calogero, C.J., concurring).
State v. Steward 681 So. 2d 1007 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695, p. 17 (La.4/28/95); .
State v. Sandifer 679 So. 2d 1324 La. 1996
See City of Baton Rouge v. Ross, 94-0695, p. 18 (La.4/28/95), , 1322-1323 n. 16.
Carver, Inc. v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORR. 672 So. 2d 1141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
4/28/95), (Calogero, C.J., concurring.); see La.R.S.
City of Baton Rouge v. Williams 661 So. 2d 445 La. 1995
State v. Baxley 656 So. 2d 973 La. 1995
( Calogero, C.J., concurring ) ( citations omitted ) ( footnote omitted ).