Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite City of Shreveport v. Marx, 86 So. 602.

23 citing documents.

State v. Calascione 149 So. 2d 417 La. 1963
State v. Mills 86 So. 2d 895 La. 1956
State v. Mastricovo 59 So. 2d 403 La. 1952
State v. Robinson 58 So. 2d 408 La. 1952
State v. Shotts 22 So. 2d 209 La. 1945
State v. Shotts 22 So. 2d 209 La. 1945
State v. Sharbino 194 So. 756 La. 1940
State v. Alvarez 162 So. 725 La. 1935
ourt overruled the appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence because said evidence was seized without a search warrant, for the reason that the jurisprudence of this state is that relevant evidence, although seized without a search warrant, is none the less admissible in evidence.” •The correctness of this ruling is settled beyond any question by the following cases: , 86 So.
State v. McDonald 160 So. 75 La. 1935
State v. Norris 109 So. 787 La. 1926
State v. Eddins 108 So. 468 La. 1926
State v. Weaver 102 So. 81 La. 1924
Evidence is not rendered inadmissible by having been secured in an illegal manner.” , 86 So.
State v. Johnson 97 So. 874 La. 1923
State v. Davis 97 So. 590 La. 1923
should not be excluded even though obtained by search and seizure without a search warrant,” .
State v. Mims 95 So. 264 La. 1922
State v. Rodgers 94 So. 397 La. 1922
On the contrary, , 86 South.
State v. Lowry 95 So. 596 La. 1922
The ruling of this court in the Knowles Case, cited above, , 86 South.
State v. Creel 94 So. 433 La. 1922
State v. Tuggle 94 So. 377 La. 1922
State v. Zeblit 93 So. 912 La. 1922
State v. Venezia 91 So. 761 La. 1922
[1] Counsel concedes that the first question has been twice decided by this court contrary to his present contention ( , 86 South.
State v. Boudreaux 90 So. 751 La. 1922
City of Lake Charles v. Rose 89 So. 884 La. 1921