No. 27441.
Precedential
Processed
State v. W.J. Austin
State v. W.J. Austin, 107 So. 126 (La. 1926).
Cited by
- Settle v. Bossier Parish School Board 93 So. 3d 1284 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
- CONCERNED BUS. & PROP. OWN. OF DeSOTO, INC. v. DeSOTO PARISH SCH. BD. 528 So. 2d 567 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
- Michell v. Louisiana State Board of Optometry Exam. 146 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
- State ex rel. Dupas v. City of New Orleans 125 So. 2d 375 La. 1960
- Feinblum v. Louisiana State Board of Optom. Exam. 97 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
- Caz-Perk Realty, Inc. v. Police Jury of Parish 35 So. 2d 860 La. 1948
- Wilson v. Lee 199 So. 117 La. 1940
- State Ex Rel. Floyd v. Hodges 115 So. 747 La. 1928
- State v. Foster 114 So. 696 La. 1927
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Hebert 107 So. 123
Opinion text
O’NIELL, O. J. Appellant was convicted of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes. The only question propounded is whether he was entitled to be informed, in response to a motion for a bill of particulars, of the name or identity of the person alleged tOohave bought the liquor, provided he was a nonresident or stranger in the parish, or was biased or prejudiced against, or an enemy of the defendant. The question was answered in the negative in the case of State v. Hebert (No. 27442) 107 So. 123 , 1 decided to-day. For the reasons given in that ease, The conviction and sentence are affirmed. 1 Ante, p. 316.