DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Fields v. State, 714 So. 2d 1244.

29 citing documents.

  • Michelle Rung v. Deondrick Bessard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
  • Andrew Fairbanks Versus Brooke Beninate La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2020
  • Barber v. La. Workforce Comm'n 266 So. 3d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Vogel 261 So. 3d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    7/8/98), , 1259 (citing Texaco, Inc. v. Short , 454 U.S. 516 , 532, 102 S.Ct.
  • Muhammad v. Babin 241 So. 3d 1231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State of Louisiana v. Warren J. Hoffpauir, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    Safety & Corr., 98-611, p. 7 (La.7/8/98)
  • Adair Asset Management, LLC v. Turney 195 So. 3d 501 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    Fields v. State, 1998-0611 (La.07/08/98), ; La.
  • Harrah's Bossier City Investment Co., LLC v. Bridges 41 So. 3d 438 La. 2010
    The State also cites Fields v. State, 98-0611 (La.7/8/98), , in which we remanded plaintiffs’ due process claim because it “was not addressed by the trial court nor was it sufficiently briefed or presented to this court for us to make a determination.” Id.
  • HARRAH'S BOSSIER CITY INV. CO. v. Bridges 41 So. 3d 438 La. 2010
    The State also cites Fields v. State, 98-0611 (La.7/8/98), , in which we remanded plaintiffs' due process claim because it "was not addressed by the trial court nor was it sufficiently briefed or presented to this court for us to make a determination."
  • City of Kenner v. Kenner Municipal Fire & Police Civil Service Board 31 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In Fields v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611, pp. 7-8 (La.7/8/98), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held: Generally, before a person is deprived of a protected interest, he must be afforded some kind of hearing.
  • Kenneth James Domingue v. Pamela Ruth Bodin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
  • Domingue v. Bodin 996 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    Safety & Corr., 98-611, p. 7 (La.7/8/98), .
  • Scott v. DIV. OF HOUS. & NEIGHBORHOOD DEV. 991 So. 2d 558 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    Fields v. State Through Dept. of Safety of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611, pp. 7-8 (La.7/8/98), ( (La.
  • Reed v. Department of Police 967 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    In Fields v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611, pp. 7-8 (La.7/8/98), , the Supreme Court clarified its position: Generally, before a person is deprived of a protected interest, he must be afforded some kind of hearing.
  • Hamilton v. Royal Intern. Petroleum Corp. 934 So. 2d 25 La. 2006
    Fields v. State through Dep't of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-611, p. 6 (La.7/8/98), .
  • Delahoussaye v. BOARD OF SUP'RS OF COLLEGES 906 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    Fields v. State, Through Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611, p. 11 (La.7/8/98), , (La.
  • Allain v. Martco Partnership 828 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    Fields v. State through Dept. of Public Safety & Corrections, 98-0611, p. 6 n. 2 (La.7/8/98), , 1250 n. 2; see also Standard *596 Materials, Inc. v. City of Slidell, 96-0684 (La.App.
  • Paschal v. Hazlinsky 803 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Fields v. State, through Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611 (La.7/8/98), .
  • Garden District Neighborhood Improvement Ass'n v. Garden District Development Group, LLC 789 So. 2d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    The cases cited by GDNIA, and Fields v. State, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611 (La.7/8/98), , all deal with situations in which due process requires .that notice must be given to an individual whose fundamental rights or property rights were being directly affected and do not stand for a requirement that notice be given | Rto any interested party.
  • State v. Edwards 787 So. 2d 981 La. 2001
    *993 Fields v. State, 98-0611, (La.7/8/98), ; Progressive Security Ins.
  • Anderson v. Cunningham 786 So. 2d 940 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Fields v. State, 98-0611 (La.7/8/98)
  • Fontenot v. Southwest Louisiana Hospital Ass'n 775 So. 2d 1111 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    “An elementary and fundamental requirement of due | ^process is notice reasonably calculated under all the circumstances to appraise interested parties of the pendency of the action and to afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” Fields v. State, Through the Dep’t of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611, p. 20 (La.7/8/98); .
  • State v. Jackson 764 So. 2d 64 La. 2000
    The court of appeal acknowledged that this court has distinguished insurance checkpoints from DWI checkpoints, citing to State v. McHugh, 92-1852 (La.1/6/94), , and Fields v. State, 98-0611 (La.7/8/98), .
  • In re A.J.F. 764 So. 2d 47 La. 2000
    Safety & Corrections, 98-0611 (La.7/8/98), , and Progressive Sec.
  • In Re AJF 764 So. 2d 47 La. 2000
    Safety & Corrections, 98-0611 (La.7/8/98), , and Progressive Sec.
  • State v. Edwards 752 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    Fields v. State, 98-0611, p. 6 (La.7/8/98), .
  • Price v. U-Haul Co. of Louisiana 745 So. 2d 593 La. 1999
    Fields v. State of Louisiana Through Dep't of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611 p. 6 (La.7/8/98), .
  • State v. Carr 738 So. 2d 1173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    To afford notice, a legislature “need do nothing more than enact and publish the law, and afford the citizenry a reasonable opportunity to familiarize itself with its terms and to comply.” Fields v. State Through Dept. of Public Safety and Corrections, 98-0611, p. 22 (La.7/8/98); , (citing Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 532 , 102 S.Ct.
  • State v. Crawford 727 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    [5] Fields v. State, 98-0611, p. 24 (La.7/8/98), .