Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Smith v. State, 84 So. 3d 487.

22 citing documents.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.D. La. 2025
1/24/12), -98 (“It is well-settled that Louisiana's sex offender registration requirements are not punitive, but rather, they are remedial and may be applied retroactively without violating the prohibition of the ex post facto clause.); State v. Golston, 10-2804 (La.
Eugene Moore v. Louisiana Attorney's General's Office, Louisiana State Police, Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Calcasieu … La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
Anthony Gallo v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
App. 1st Cir. 9/21/12), -18, citing Smith v. State, 2010-1140 La.1/24/12), -498.
State Of Louisiana v. Joseph Frank Bedford La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
1/ 24/ 12), - 98; State ex rel.
In re State In Interest of N.J. 275 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
1/24/12), , 497 ; *272 State v. Billiot , 2012-0174, p. 6 (La.
Thomas v. A. Wilbert & Sons, LLC 217 So. 3d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Jones 182 So. 3d 1218 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2015
2566 , 150 L.Ed.2d 730 (2001), and Smith v. State, 10-1140 (La.1/24/12), , wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court examined and upheld the requirements and obligations of sex offenders.
State v. Lodge 176 So. 3d 612 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
In addition, the Louisiana Supreme Court has also found that “the period of time a sex offender is obligated to register may be extended during the time of his original registration period without violating the ex post facto clause.” Smith v. State, 2010-1140, p. 15 (La.1/24/12), .
State v. Sanderson 174 So. 3d 149 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Smith v. State, 2010-1140 (La.1/24/12), .
State v. Cox 174 So. 3d 131 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Smith v. State, 10-1140, p. 15 (La.1/24/12), .
Danny Kelly v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 169 So. 3d 328 La. 2015
1/24/12), a man convicted of sex offenses occurring in 1995 urged us to apply a restrictive date for sex offender registration that followed the word “or,” such that the restrictive date of 1997 would also apply to the phrase before the word “or.” The statute (La.
State v. Gordon 146 So. 3d 758 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Smith v. State, 2010-1140, p. 15 (La.1/24/12), .
State v. Collins 125 So. 3d 1245 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
Olivieri v. State, 00-0172 (La.2/21/01), , and Smith v. State, 10-1140 (La.1/24/12), .
Distinguished State v. Lodge 116 So. 3d 851 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The State argues that the First Circuit’s decision in Smith , was reversed by the Louisiana Supreme Court in Smith v. State, 2010-1140 (La.1/24/12), .
State v. Clark 117 So. 3d 1246 La. 2013
Smith v. State, 10-1140 (La.1/24/12); ; State ex rel.
State v. I.C.S. 110 So. 3d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See Smith v. State, 2010-1140 (La.1/24/12), ; State v. Williams, 2000-1725 (La.11/28/01), .
State of Louisiana v. Randolph Marinoni La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
1/24/12), -96 (footnote omitted): 3 We next find the court of appeal erred in holding that Mr. Smith could not be required to register for life absent a contradictory hearing.
State v. Marinoni 101 So. 3d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Louisiana Supreme Court addressed this scenario in Smith v. State, 10-1140, pp. 11-13 (La.1/24/12), -96 (footnote omitted): |4We next find the court of appeal erred in holding that Mr. Smith could not be required to register for life absent a contradictory hearing.
State of Louisiana v. Charles L. Bergeron La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Billiot 104 So. 3d 113 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Smith v. State, 2010- *118 1140, pp. 15-16 (La.1/24/12), -498 .
State v. Nye 89 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The rules for statutory construction of Louisiana’s sex offender registration statutes were set forth in Smith v. State, 10-1140, pp. 6-7 (La.1/24/12), , as follows: The starting point in the interpretation of any statute is the language of the statute itself.
Jackson v. State 102 So. 3d 784 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
During the pendency of this appeal, the Louisiana Supreme Court issued Smith v. State of Louisiana, 10-1140 (La.1/24/12), , which reversed the First Circuit’s ruling, and held “the 1999 amend *787 ment to former La.R.S.