State v. Boggan
State v. Boggan, 175 So. 66 (La. 1937).
Cited by
- First Nat. Bank of Ruston v. Mercer 448 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
- Succession of Cutrer v. Curtis 341 So. 2d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
- Stanfill v. Johnson 258 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
- Arquembourg v. Bourque 243 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
- American Creosote Company v. Springer 241 So. 2d 510 La. 1970
- American Creosote Co. v. Springer 232 So. 2d 532 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1969
- Bash v. Sims 210 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1968
- Terrell v. Wright 161 So. 2d 103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
- Dixie Pine Products Co. v. Switzer 111 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
- Loeb v. Candias 106 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1958
- Smith v. Bell 68 So. 2d 737 La. 1953
- Serio v. Chadwick 66 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Pridgen 175 So. 63
Opinion text
ODOM, Justice. The defendant in this case was prosecuted and convicted for selling intoxicating liquors in Sabine parish, where the sale of such liquors is prohibited by law. Like the indictment in State v. Pridgen (La.Sup.) 175 So. 63 , this day decided, the indictment does riot'allege that the liquors were sold for beverage purposes; and, as in the Pridgen Case, the defendant filed no demurrer,-but after conviction and before sentence filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which was overruled. The issues involved in the two cases are identical, and for the reasons assigned in the Pridgen Case, the motion in arrest of judgment filed in this case is sustained, the conviction and-sentence are annulled, and it is ordered that defendant be discharged.