Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Varnado, 23 So. 2d 106.

36 citing documents.

Knights of Columbus, Chapter 2409 v. La. Dept. of Pub. Saf. & Corrections, Div. of State Police 548 So. 2d 936 La. 1989
954 , (1946); , (1945) (both upholding former Criminal Code art. 90, now La.R.S.
State v. Griffin 495 So. 2d 1306 La. 1986
14:90, which prohibits "Gambling," , (1944), this Court has not previously considered the constitutionality of La.R.S.
State v. Gainey 376 So. 2d 1240 La. 1979
1082 , (1955); , (1945).
City of New Orleans v. Owen 355 So. 2d 1297 La. 1978
333 , (1965); , (1945); State v. Hebert, 205 La.
State v. Ford 349 So. 2d 300 La. 1977
397 , (1972) , (1945) for the proposition that, when a statute "characterizes the offense in general or generic terms, an indictment or information charging the offense in the words of the statute is insufficient and the specific facts upon which the charge is based must be set out."
State v. Comeaux 319 So. 2d 897 La. 1975
415 , (1948); , (1944); State v. Pete, 206 La.
State v. Heck 307 So. 2d 332 La. 1975
415 , (1948); , (1944); State v. Pete, 206 La.
State v. Smith 275 So. 2d 733 La. 1973
368 , (1948); , (1945) (gambling); State v. Fazzio, 208 La.
State v. Spina 259 So. 2d 891 La. 1972
State v. Henry 198 So. 2d 889 La. 1967
1082 , , citing State v. Varnado (on rehearing), , and other authorities.” Although the Varnado decision (cited in the foregoing quotation) was not relied on by this defendant, a member of this court suggested during oral argument that it might be applicable here.
State v. Fitzgerald 179 So. 2d 906 La. 1965
State v. Cloud 176 So. 2d 620 La. 1965
State v. Bertrand 170 So. 2d 386 La. 1964
110 , ; State v. Varnado, (on rehearing) , ; State v. Truby, 211 La.
State v. Odom 169 So. 2d 909 La. 1964
1082 , , citing State v. Varnado (on rehearing) , and other authorities.
State v. Wiener 161 So. 2d 755 La. 1964
472 , ; , ; 9 La.Law Review 247-248; 10 La.Law Review 198-202; and 22 Tulane Law Review 653-656.
State v. Thomas 158 So. 2d 606 La. 1963
State v. Ford 159 So. 2d 129 La. 1963
63 ; , ; State v. Roth, 224 La.
State v. Smith 146 So. 2d 152 La. 1962
666 ; , ; State v. Blanchard, 226 La.
Vaughan v. Dowling 144 So. 2d 371 La. 1962
In the recent case of State v. Varnado Blackwell, La.Sup., [ ,] (rehearing refused June 5, 1945), it was held that Article 90 of the Criminal Code is not vague in its definition of gambling.” We believe that our findings, supra, and the jurisprudence we have cited and quoted, set forth the general characteristics of a “Slot Machine” reprobated by LSA-R.S.
State v. McCrory 112 So. 2d 432 La. 1959
56 , ; , ; State v. Pizzolotto, 209 La.
Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Boisvert 103 So. 2d 507 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1958
It follows that defendant’s exception was properly overruled.” Counsel for appellant relies upon State v. Varnado, 1944-1945, , as authority for holding plaintiff’s petition fails to set forth a valid cause of action.
State v. Kershaw 100 So. 2d 873 La. 1958
(on Rehearing), ; State v. Straughan, 229 La.
State v. Green 93 So. 2d 657 La. 1957
110 , ; , ; State v. Pettifield, 210 La.
State v. Straughan 87 So. 2d 523 La. 1956
859 , ; , ; State v. Pettifield, 210 La.
State v. McQueen 87 So. 2d 727 La. 1955
State v. Dabbs 84 So. 2d 601 La. 1955
at page 380, , at page 126, which in part is as follows: ««* * * The office 0f a bill of particulars is to supply the accused and the court additional information concerning an accusation that the defendant has committed an act or acts constituting a criminal offense.
State v. Blanchard 78 So. 2d 181 La. 1955
State v. Varnado, on rehearing, , .
State v. Scheuering 76 So. 2d 921 La. 1954
56 , ; , , and authorities therein cited.
State v. Scheuering 76 So. 2d 921 La. 1954
56 , ; , , and authorities therein cited.
State v. Kelley 73 So. 2d 437 La. 1954
on rehearing, in discussing the charge this Court said: “Thus it may be seen that the district attorney, in drawing up this bill of information, has used the general words of the statute, the only difference being the use of the conjunctive ‘and’ where the disjunctive ‘or’ is .used in the st
State v. Richardson 56 So. 2d 568 La. 1951
and other authorities cited and relied upon by relator are not pertinent or controlling in the instant case.
State v. Simpson 43 So. 2d 585 La. 1949
State v. Davis 39 So. 2d 164 La. 1949
State v. Truby 29 So. 2d 758 La. 1947
1078 , ; State v. Varnado, 1945, , .
State v. Clark 24 So. 2d 72 La. 1945
State v. Davis 23 So. 2d 801 La. 1945
ncur in the conclusion reached in the majority opinion that gambling as defined in Article 90 of the Louisiana Criminal Code is neither vague nor unconstitutional for the reasons urged in the several motions and pleas filed by the defendant, all ■of which have been previously adjudicated upon by this court in the .cases of State v. Pete, 206 La, 1078, , and State v. Varnado, La.Sup., , both of which decisions I had the privilege of writing, but I cannot subscribe to the conclusion reached in the

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by