State v. Ellington
State v. Ellington, 96 So. 529 (La. 1923).
Cited by
Overruled in 1
- Wilbert J. Saucier, Jr. v. Robert E. Washington, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
- Saucier v. Washington 229 So. 3d 19 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
- James Patrick Cluse D/B/A J. P. Cluse Construction v. H & E Equipment Services, … La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
- Cluse v. H & E Equipment Services, Inc. 34 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
- Natchitoches v. Employers Reinsurance 819 So. 2d 413 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
- Fitzgerald v. Tucker 737 So. 2d 706 La. 1999
- Williamson v. Historic Hurstville Ass'n 556 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
- Munson v. Gaylord Broadcasting Co. 491 So. 2d 780 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
- Clements v. Ryan 382 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1980
- Slocum v. Webb 375 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
- Wilson v. Capital City Press 315 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
- Lazar v. Gremillion 189 So. 2d 35 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Surgi v. Snetchman 11 La. Ann. 387
Opinion text
OVERTON, J. Defendant was tried on,an affidavit charging him with having had unlawfully in his possession, on December 24, 1922, intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $500 and to 60 days in jail, and, in default of paying the fine, to six months additional imprisonment. Although defendant has appealed from the sentence, he has filed no brief. Before arraignment defendant filed a motion to quash the affidavit on the ground that the act under which he was being prosecuted “is unconstitutional, null, void, and of no effect.” The plea does not indicate in what respect the act is unconstitutional, or even whether it violates the state or federal Constitution. A plea that a statute is unconstitutional, so vaguely framed, is defective, and, not entitled to notice. Surgi v. Snetchman, 11 La. Ann. 387 . The record also contains a motion for a new trial, filed by defendant, based on the ground that the verdict and judgment of the court finding him guilty is contrary to the law and the evidence. A motion for a new trial, based on that ground, is not reviewable by us, as we have repeatedly held. Eor the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.