DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Johnson, 667 So. 2d 510.

19 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. John L. Fussell, Sr. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
    1/16/96), State v. Hill, 54,644 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Quinton Damone Hill La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
  • State Of Louisiana v. Ronald Gasser La. 2022
  • State v. Boyd 119 So. 3d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    We also note that in State v. 1979 Cadillac Deville, et al., 94-1077 (La.1/16/96), , the Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the civil forfeiture of a 12-year-old vehicle on finding there is no punishment so as to invoke double jeopardy provisions of the Fifth Amendment.
  • State v. $2,540.00 U.S. Currency Seized from Foster 92 So. 3d 1153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    State v. Johnson, 94-1077 (La.01/16/96), .
  • State v. 2003 Infiniti G35 VIN JNKCV51E93MO24167 27 So. 3d 824 La. 2010
    In State v. Johnson, 1994-1077, p. 13 (La.1/16/96), ), we held that “the civil forfeiture of contraband per se or derivative contraband is not punishment' for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis” and that "[t]he government's taking of property in which the ‘owner’ has never actually had a legal interest does not deprive the individual of property or any other
  • State v. Edwards 787 So. 2d 981 La. 2001
    2nd Cir. 6/18/97), citing this court's opinion in State v. Johnson, 94-0595 (La.1/16/96), .
  • State Ex Rel. Olivieri v. State 779 So. 2d 735 La. 2001
    Moreover, in State v. Johnson, 94-1077 (La.1/16/96), , we recognized that the definition of punishment for purposes of double jeopardy analysis is the same under the Louisiana and United States Constitutions; accordingly, we concluded that federal precepts which interpreted punishment would be utilized for purposes of double jeopardy analysis in this state.
  • State v. Duncan 738 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled in State v. Johnson, 94-0595 and 94-1077, p. 5 (La.1/16/96), , that with respect to the definition of punishment "for purposes of double jeopardy" the Louisiana State Constitution provided no greater individual rights than the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and applied federal precepts when deciding the matter.
  • State v. PROPERTY LOCATED AT OAKLAND ST. 727 So. 2d 1240 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
    Previously, Louisiana courts evaluated civil forfeitures by the two part test found in State v. Johnson, 94-0595, 94-1077 (La.1/16/96), : Does the civil penalty (1) impose a sanction overwhelmingly disproportionate to the damages the offender has caused, and (2) bear no rational relation to the goal of compensating the government for the cost it was incurred in investigating and prosecuting the violation.
  • State v. Johnson 713 So. 2d 579 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
    State v. Johnson, 94-1077 (La.1/16/96), .
  • State v. Giles 697 So. 2d 699 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    Similarly, in State v. Johnson, Nos. 94-KK-0595 and 94-C-1077 (La.1/16/96), , while explaining why forfeiture of contraband is not punitive, our supreme court defined contraband as follows: [T]here are two kinds of property which may be classified as contraband [ ...
  • State v. Colarte 688 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    In State v. Johnson, 94-0595 and 94-1077, p. 5 (La.1/16/96); , the Louisiana Supreme Court noted: LSA-Const.
  • State v. Perez 686 So. 2d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    In the instant case, applying the jurisprudence cited in Colarte, namely State v. Johnson, 94-0595 and 94-1077 (La.1/16/96); and United States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct.
  • State v. Dunn 682 So. 2d 1309 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in the recent case State v. Johnson, 94-0595 and 94-1077, p. 6 (La.1/16/96), , held that, in respect to the definition of punishment “for purposes of double jeopardy”, the Louisiana State Constitution provided no greater individual rights than the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and applied federal precepts when deciding the matter of forfeiture of property under the Dru
  • State v. Stubbs 682 So. 2d 1312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    The Louisiana Supreme Court, in the recent ease State v. Johnson, 94-0595 and 94-1077, p. 6 (La.1/16/96), , held that, in respect to the definition of punishment “for purposes of double jeopardy”, the Louisiana State Constitution provided no greater individual rights than the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitu *1314 tion, and applied federal precepts when deciding the matter of forfeiture of property under
  • State v. Strickland 683 So. 2d 218 La. 1996
  • State v. Curtis 679 So. 2d 512 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
    1/16/96), ; and cases cited therein.
  • State v. Earnest 673 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    More information is needed before this court can apply the proper test, which was recently explained in State v. Johnson, 94-1077, p. 8 (La.1/16/96), : The Supreme Court in [ U.S. v. ] Halper [ 490 U.S. 435 , 109 S.Ct.