Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Stanley v. Jones, 9 So. 2d 678.

19 citing documents.

In re Justice of the Peace Franklin 969 So. 2d 591 La. 2007
In addition, the Commission noted this court’s statements, cited in King , , (1942), wherein it removed a sitting district court judge for lying: The office of judge is one in which the general public has a deep and vital interest, and, because that is true, the official conduct of judges, as well as their private conduct is closely observed.
In Re Miller 949 So. 2d 379 La. 2007
In Re Hughes 874 So. 2d 746 La. 2004
(1942), a judicial removal proceeding in which a judge was removed for gross misconduct off the bench, we noted: The office of judge is one in which the general public has a deep and vital interest, and, because that is true, the official conduct of judges, as well as their private conduct, is close
In Re Davis 865 So. 2d 693 La. 2004
This Court, , in which a district court judge was removed for lying, stated: The office of judge is one in which the general public has a deep and vital interest, and, because that is true, the official conduct of judges, as well as their private conduct is closely observed.
In Re King 857 So. 2d 432 La. 2003
(1942), wherein it removed a district court judge for lying: The office of judge is one in which the general public has a deep and vital interest, and, because that is true, the official conduct of judges, as well as their private conduct is closely observed.
Roberson v. Provident House 576 So. 2d 992 La. 1991
921 , (1968); , (1942); Hope v. Madison, 192 La.
Webster v. Rushing 316 So. 2d 111 La. 1975
921 , (1968); , (1942); Hope v. Madison, 192 La.
Webster v. Rushing 304 So. 2d 66 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
(1942); Austrum v. City of Baton Rouge, La., (1973).
In Re Haggerty 241 So. 2d 469 La. 1970
Whether or not an act constitutes misconduct must be determined from the facts surrounding the act, the nature of the act, and the intention of the actor.” , (1942), a judicial-removal proceeding in which a judge was removed for *29 “gross misconduct” off the bench, as then denounced by a now-repealed prior constitutional provision, this court stated: “The office of judge is one in which the general public has a deep and vital interest, and, because that
Woodard v. Woodard 229 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
State Ex Rel. Gremillion v. O'HARA 211 So. 2d 641 La. 1968
279 .” , , is the only Louisiana case involving removal of a judge for gross misconduct not connected with his office.
Bailey Corp. v. Charles P. Wagner & Bro., Inc. 143 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
See Bartolotta v. Gambino, La.App., ; DeRouen v. Aiavolasiti, La.App., ; , .
Malveaux v. Buller 135 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
498 , ; , ; II Wigmore on Evidence (2rd Ed.) 162, Sections 285 and 286; 22 C.J. 115, Section 56; 31 C.J.S.
Central La. El. Co. v. Covington & St. Tammany L. & I. Co. 131 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Wooten v. Thompson 69 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
498 , ; , ; II Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) 162, Sections 285 and 286; 22 C.J. 115, § 56; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 156, subsec.
Succession of Yeates 35 So. 2d 210 La. 1948
498 , ; , ; II Wigmore on Evidence (2rd Ed.) 162, Sections 285 and 286; 22 C.J. 115, Section 56; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, § 156, subsec.
Bates v. Blitz 17 So. 2d 816 La. 1944
2d 662 ; , ; II Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) 162, Sections 285 and 286; 22 C.J. 115, § 56; 31 C.J.S., Evidence, p. 856, § 156, subsec.
In Re Meraux 12 So. 2d 798 La. 1943
Gen., v. Jones, 1942, , , and Perez, Dist.
Perez v. Meraux 9 So. 2d 662 La. 1942
* * * I signed the orders in both those cases * * * At my home in Merauxville.” We pointed out in the case of Eugene Stanley, Attorney General, v. James W. Jones, Jr., , 1 being handed down today, that “The fact that he (Judge Jones) did not get that information (relative to proceeds of a check given to a brother of his court reporter by Judge Jones’s wife) and produce it raises the strongest presumption that he could not produce it.