Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Overstreet, 111 So. 3d 308.

13 citing documents.

Succession of Barbara Benton Williams La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
In Re: Kristen Nicole Dennis and Jessica Falcon Dennis Applying for Intrafamily Adoption of J.K.D. La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
State of Louisiana in the Interest of L.L. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Michael Calvin Duhon -Aka- Michael C. Duhon -Aka- Michael Duhon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
3/19/13), the supreme court stated: This Court has expressed the challenger’s burden as a three-step process.
State v. Travis 265 So. 3d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
Aleashia Clarkston v. Ike Funderburk La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
Clarkston v. Funderburk 211 So. 3d 509 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Grant 198 So. 3d 1219 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
“The purpose of particularizing the constitutional grounds is so that the adjudicating court can analyze and interpret the language of the constitutional provision specified by the challenger” State v. Overstreet, 12-1854, p. 10 (La.3/19/13), (citing State v. Expunged Record (No.) 249,044, 03-1940, p. 4 (La.7/2/04), ).
State of Louisiana v. Robert Lee Heard, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
3/19/13), the supreme court discussed the Hatton three-step analysis and concluded that the defendant in that case failed to sufficiently particularize any basis for finding the statutes at issue unconstitutional.
State v. Heard 215 So. 3d 825 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
Subsequently, in State v. Overstreet, 12-1854 (La.3/19/13), , the supreme court discussed the Hatton three-step analysis and concluded that the defendant in that case failed to sufficiently particularize any basis for finding the statutes at issue unconstitutional.
State v. Smith 144 So. 3d 867 La. 2014
In addition, while this Court has repeatedly cautioned the district courts against declaring a statute unconstitutional on grounds not advanced by the litigants, see, e.g., State v. Over-street, 12-1854 (La.3/19/13), ; State v. Duheart, 12-0085 (La.10/26/12), ; State v. Camese, 11-2534 (La.9/12/12), ; State v. Bazile, 11-2201 (La.
State ex rel. J.D. 129 So. 3d 831 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
The Louisiana Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that “[wjhile there is no single procedure for attacking the constitutionality of a statute, it has long been held that the unconstitutionality of a statute must be specifically pleaded and the grounds for the claim particularized.” State v. Overstreet, 12-1854, p. 9 (La.3/19/13), (quoting State v. Hatton, 07-2377, p. 13 (La.7/1/08), ) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).
State v. Hankton 122 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Overstreet, 12-1854, p. 9 (La.3/19/13), (“Statutes are generally presumed to be constitutional and the party challenging the validity of the statute bears the burden of proving it is unconstitutional”), quoting Hatton, supra.