Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite In Re Lemoine, 692 So. 2d 358.

22 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Steven Ray Killingsworth La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
State of Louisiana Versus Armande Tart La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana Versus Lawrence Staehle La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Nancy Anderson; Joy Manguno; Jayme Songy, as Curator for Malvina Songy; And Janice Verdin, as Responsible Party of … La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
Supreme Court Of Louisiana La. 2021
4/4/97), (“Misconduct exposes a judge to punishment, anywhere from public censure (which may ultimately result in ‘removal’ of the judge by the constituency that elects him) to removal from office by the Supreme Court.”).
In Re Justice of the Peace Leroy J. LAICHE, Jr., Second Justice Court, Parish of Ascension, State of … 198 So. 3d 86 La. 2016
ethical canon has specifically been violated.” In re: *91 Lemoine, 96-2116 p. 2 (La.4/4/97)(on rehearing), .
State v. Kennedy 73 So. 3d 985 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In re Lemoine, 96-2116, pp. 10-11 (La.1/14/97), , on rehearing, 96-2116 (La.4/4/97), .
Slaughter v. Board of Supervisors of Southern University & Agricultural & Mechanical College 76 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Galliano 945 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
In re Lemoine, 96-2116 (La.1/14/97), , on reh'g, 96-2116 (La.4/4/97), .
In re Johnson 903 So. 2d 408 La. 2005
ethical canon has specifically been violated.” In Re Lemoine, 96-2116 (La.4/4/97)(on rehearing), .
State of Louisiana v. Charles Brown, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In re Lemoine, 96-0-2116, pp. 10-11 (La.1/14/97), on rehearing 96-0-2116 (La.4/4/97)
State v. Brown 874 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
In re Lemoine, XX-X-XXXX, pp. 10-11 (La.1/14/97), , on rehearing XX-X-XXXX *321 (La.4/4/97), .
In Re Davis 865 So. 2d 693 La. 2004
[21] See, e.g., In re Lemoine, 96-2116 (La.1/14/97), , on reh'g, , (judge engaged in ethical misconduct by failing to recuse himself from criminal cases in which defense counsel were attorneys with whom he co-owned real estate and/or to whom he rented office space and thus was publicly censured).
State v. Page 837 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
In re Lemoine, XX-X-XXXX (La.1/14/97), , on reh'g, XX-X-XXXX (La.4/4/97), .
State v. Doleman 835 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
In re: Lemoine, 96-2116, p. 12 (La.1/14/97), , reasons amended in part on rehearing, (La.4/4/97), .
SOUTHERN CASING OF LA., INC. v. Houma Avionics, Inc. 809 So. 2d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
art. 671; In re Lemoine, XX-X-XXXX, p. 4 (La.1/14/97), , on rehearing, .
State v. Williams 788 So. 2d 515 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
In re Lemoine, XX-X-XXXX, pp. 10-11 (La.1/14/97), , on rehearing XX-X-XXXX (La.4/4/97), .
Guidry v. First Nat. Bank of Commerce 755 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
In support of this argument, he contends that the Supreme Court's application of Civil Procedure *1037 article 151 B and the Code of Judicial Conduct in In re Lemoine, 96-2116 (La.4/4/97), , and In re Cooks, 96-1447 (La.5/20/97), , has rendered the distinction between mandatory and permissive grounds for recusal in civil cases irrelevant.
O'NEILL v. Thibodeaux 709 So. 2d 962 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
However, the recent Louisiana Supreme Court case of In re Lemoine, 96-2116, pp. 2-4 (4/4/97); -360 , on rehearing stated that: A judge's clear violation of a statute is misconduct, because it is a judge violating the law, and such disobedience or disrespect for the law, which his very oath commands that he support, constitutes "willful misconduct relating this official duty," under Art. V, § 25(C) of the C
In Re Quirk 705 So. 2d 172 La. 1997
In re Lemoine, 96-2116 p. 2 (La.4/4/97)(on rehearing), .
In re Cooks 697 So. 2d 1326 La. 1997
Abshire I is consistent with our language, In re: Judge Henry Lemoine, Jr., 96-2116, (LA 4/4/97), where the court said “...
In Re Cooks 694 So. 2d 892 La. 1997
We have, in another case on rehearing, addressed whether sanctions are appropriate where a judge fails to recuse him or herself according to the Judicial Code before the 1996 amendments [13] , where no motion to recuse has been filed and where the grounds for recusal is stated to be "permissive" rather than "mandatory" under C.C.P 151 B. In Re Lemoine, 96-2116 (La.4/4/97), (per curiam), on rehearing.