Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Foster, 101 So. 255.

31 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Raymond Daniel Lowrey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
State v. Lowrey 228 So. 3d 779 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State v. Franks 55 So. 3d 34 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
State v. Robinson 549 So. 2d 1282 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
State v. Holmes 475 So. 2d 1057 La. 1985
State v. Fontenot 408 So. 2d 919 La. 1981
State v. Knowles 392 So. 2d 651 La. 1980
State v. Steele 387 So. 2d 1175 La. 1980
State v. Nichols 337 So. 2d 1074 La. 1976
State Ex Rel. Wikberg v. Henderson 292 So. 2d 505 La. 1974
In re State ex rel. Sylvester 267 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1972
State v. Didier 263 So. 2d 322 La. 1972
621 ], supra; State v. Foster [ , 101 So.
State v. Bonfanti 262 So. 2d 504 La. 1972
State v. Bonfanti 262 So. 2d 504 La. 1972
95 (1922), held that there need only be substantial identity in the offenses charged, explaining that substantial identity exists when the evidence necessary to support the second charge would have been- sufficient *159 for the first, , 101 So.
State v. Poland 232 So. 2d 499 La. 1970
Fayard v. Celestan 227 So. 2d 795 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
889 , ; Ouachita National Bank v. Shell Beach Const. Co., 154 La.
State v. Andrus 199 So. 2d 867 La. 1967
State v. Comeaux 192 So. 2d 122 La. 1966
Hibernia National Bank in New Orleans v. Mary 174 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
889 , ; Ouachita National Bank v. Shell Beach Const. Co., 154 La.
General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Kroger 136 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
889 , ; Bank of LaFourche v. Barrios, 167 La.
State v. Calvo 121 So. 2d 244 La. 1960
State v. Ysasi 64 So. 2d 213 La. 1953
State v. Richardson 56 So. 2d 568 La. 1951
Walters v. Childers 38 So. 2d 160 La. 1948
889 , ; Ouachita National Bank v. Shell Beach Construction Co., 154 La.
Tilly v. Woodham 166 So. 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1936
889 , , also relied on by plaintiff, was merely a stockholder and mortgagee of the defendant corporation whose property had been seized under executory process issued on a mortgage given by it.
State Ex Rel. Armstrong v. Cage 151 So. 261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1933
889 , , the court said: “A devolutive appeal cannot avail either the defendant or an outsider in defense of an order of seizure and sale in executory proceedings.
Hicks v. Lowery 128 So. 540 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1930
889 , ; Jones et ux v. Bouanchaud, Sheriff, et al., 158 La.
State v. Roberts 129 So. 144 La. 1930
898 , , and numerous authorities there cited.
Trimble v. Chavis 123 So. 513 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1929
Bank of La Fourche v. Barrios 118 So. 893 La. 1928
889 , : “Inasmuch as the appeal in this case cannot be of any avail to the appellant, be is without interest in the matter, and therefore has no right to prosecute the appeal.” Since any decree this court could render would not have the effect of annulling the sale of the mortgaged property after its adjudication to plainti
State v. Montcrieffe 115 So. 493 La. 1928