Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hebert, 103 So. 742.
- State v. Florane 154 So. 417 La. 1934
- State v. Jacobs 144 So. 435 La. 1932
-
State v. Shelfer
116 So. 825
La. 1928
B. Shelfer, was found guilty as charged, constituting his second offense of possession of intoxicating liquor for sale for beverage purposes.” The second complaint is disposed of by reference to the rulings by a majority of the members of the court in State v. Hebert, on rehearing, , 103 So.
-
State v. Malone
112 So. 404
La. 1927
Indeed, it was said in the last cited case that it was not essential to conviction for violating the prohibition laws that the liquor should be introduced in evidence, , 103 So.
- State v. Quebadeaux 111 So. 421 La. 1927
- State v. Lowery 110 So. 732 La. 1926
- State v. Breaux 108 So. 773 La. 1926
- State v. Hollingsworth 106 So. 662 La. 1925
-
State v. Pullen
103 So. 755
La. 1924
PAUL, J. Eor the reasons assigned in State of Louisiana v. Doras Hebert (No. 26165 of docket, opinion on rehearing handed down April 11, 1924), , 1 it is therefore ordered that the preliminary writ herein issued be now recalled and relator’s application denied.
-
State v. Grover C.
103 So. 753
La. 1924
In the case of State v. Doras Hebert (No. 26165 on the docket of this court) ante, p. 200, , recently decided on rehearing, we said: “In the case now before this court, involving the interpretation of section 3 of Act 39 of 1921, no such alternative to enforce payment of the fine is found in the statute.
-
State v. Gani
101 So. 726
La. 1924
-, , No. 26165 of the docket of this court.
-
State v. Scott
103 So. 757
La. 1924
has been recognized and sustained in the leading ease on the subject, , 1 decided on rehearing by the whole court April 11, 1924.
-
State v. Gearen
103 So. 752
La. 1924
The remaining point involves the same question as the case of State v. Hebert (No. 26165) ante, p. 209, , recently decided by this court on rehearing, as to whether an alternative jail sentence can be imposed under section 980, R. S., for the failure to pay the fine, where, in the same sentence, the court has given the maximum of imprisonment (60 days under Act 39 of Ex.
-
State v. Carlander
103 So. 755
La. 1923
A rehearing was granted in this case upon the point alone de *249 cidecl in State v. Doras Hebert (No. 26105) , 1 on the - day of April, 1924; that is, as to the right of the lower court to impose an alternative jail sentence under section 980 of the R. S., for failure to pay the fine imposed under Act No. 39 of 1921 known as the Hood Bill.
-
State v. Benoit
103 So. 754
La. 1923
*243 Every issue in each of the three cases was decided to-day in State v. Doras- Hebert (No. 26165) .1 Eor the reasons given in that case, the verdict in each of these cases must be affirmed.