State v. Woolfarth
State v. Woolfarth, 127 So. 376 (La. 1930).
Cited by
- Matte v. Continental Trailways, Inc. 278 So. 2d 60 La. 1973
- Payton v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 270 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Cary v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 250 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1971
- Schenker v. Randle 209 So. 2d 327 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
- Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. 158 So. 2d 162 La. 1963
- Landry v. Travelers Indemnity Company 155 So. 2d 102 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
- Johnson v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 139 So. 2d 7 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
- Dixon v. Jenkins 139 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
- Rebert v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc. 137 So. 2d 489 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
- Gunter v. State, Department of Highways 127 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
- Llorens v. City of Alexandria 106 So. 2d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
- Metoyer v. Sewerage & Water Board 100 So. 2d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Dupont 127 So. 375
Opinion text
BRÜNOT, J. This case presents the same question which is disposed of adversely to thé contention of *96 appellant’s counsel in the ease of State v. Dupont (La. Sup.) 127 So. 375 . 1 The cases are alike except for this slight difference, viz.: In the Dupont Case, the defendant was charged with grand larceny, he pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to eight months in the' parish jail. In the present case, the defendant was charged with grand larceny, he was tried by a jury, found guilty of the larceny of property of the value of $50, and was sentenced to imprisonment at hard labor, for a term, in the state penitentiary. Grand and petit larceny of an amount exceeding $20 are punishable, in the discretion of the judge, by imprisonment in the parish jail or at hard labor in the state penitentiary. Hence the larceny of property exceeding $20 in value is held to be a felony in this state. Upon the authorities cited and the reasons given in the Dupont Case, the sentence in this case is affirmed. 1 Ante, p. 91.