Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Coco, 92 So. 883.

36 citing documents.

In re Judicial Liquidation of the New Orleans Butchers' Co-operative, Abattoir, Inc. 193 So. 2d 309 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
State v. Hertzog 146 So. 2d 149 La. 1962
State v. Viator 87 So. 2d 115 La. 1956
Jackson v. Coxe 23 So. 2d 312 La. 1945
Smith v. Home Acc. Ins. Co. 142 So. 912 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1932
State v. Bobo 125 So. 126 La. 1929
250 , , that the nine enumerated liquids, which included beer, were to be regarded and *291 were-well known as intoxicating liquors, and required no specific definition.
State v. Thomas 119 So. 401 La. 1928
The trial court declined to give the charge, and this court sustained him, , 92 So.
State v. Kimball 110 So. 336 La. 1926
State v. McCall 110 So. 723 La. 1926
is broader than its title, in that it attempts to define liquor and intoxicating Uquor, is disposed of by the following cases: , 92 So.
Roberts v. City of New Orleans 110 So. 201 La. 1926
253 , ; State v. Rogers, 148 La.
State v. Norris 109 So. 787 La. 1926
State v. Landry 109 So. 772 La. 1926
State v. Thompson 108 So. 543 La. 1926
State v. Eddins 107 So. 616 La. 1926
State v. Cryar 104 So. 304 La. 1925
242 , 246, , syllabus No. 3; State v. Marceaux, 152 La.
State v. Marcantel 104 So. 612 La. 1925
State v. Robertson 103 So. 821 La. 1925
at page 254, , the court admitted the empty bottles in evidence and the testimony of the arresting officers identifying same.” In State v. Coco, 152 La.
Vander Sluys v. Finfrock 103 So. 730 La. 1925
State v. Prophet 102 So. 666 La. 1924
State v. Copola 102 So. 82 La. 1924
Among the decisions so holding may be cited the following: , 92 So.
Brewton v. Brewton 105 So. 307 La. 1924
240 , , this court said: “There is no sufficient reason disclosed by the record why the plaintiff should not be awarded the custody and control of her child.
State v. Pete 96 So. 818 La. 1923
State v. Bass 95 So. 714 La. 1923
State v. Benoit 96 So. 18 La. 1923
That complaint, together with the others urged in the motion to quash the indictment, , 92 South.
State v. Yokum 99 So. 621 La. 1923
The liquor in this case was homemade corn whisky, and, , 92 South.
State v. Orr 95 So. 211 La. 1922
State v. Roy 94 So. 703 La. 1922
State v. Lowry 95 So. 596 La. 1922
All of these numerous grounds set forth in these motions to quash were decided adversely to the defendant’s ' , 92 South.
State v. Creel 94 So. 433 La. 1922
State v. Tuggle 94 So. 377 La. 1922
State v. Hughes 94 So. 702 La. 1922
verages by reference to federal legislation, and therefore violates section 18 of article 3 of the Constitution of 1921, which prohibits the adoption by .the Legislature of “any system or code of laws by general reference to such system or code,” and requires the Legislature, instead, to “recite at length the several provisions of the laws it may enact.” , 92 South.
State v. Marceaux 93 So. 916 La. 1922
act defines intoxicating liquors merely by reference to federal legislation, in contravention of section 18 of article 3 of Louisiana Constitution of 1921, which provides: '“The Legislature shall never adopt any system or code of laws by general reference to such system or code of laws; but in all cases shall recite at length the several provisions of the laws it may enact.” , 92 South.
State v. McCinton 94 So. 141 La. 1922
State v. Whittaker 94 So. 144 La. 1922
This contention is without merit, as the testimony in the case shows that the defendant sold a homemade com whisky, called “shinney.” , 92 South.
State v. Zeblit 93 So. 912 La. 1922
This contention is not well founded, , 92 South.
State v. Jackson 94 So. 150 La. 1922
The contention that the title of the Hood Act embraces more than one object, , 92 South.