Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Broussard, 34 So. 2d 883.

26 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Ron Cleon Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2024
harmony with, preserve, and effectuate the manifest intent of the legislature, and an interpretation should be avoided which would operate to defeat the purpose and object of the statute.” State v. Williams, 03-3514, p. 2 (La.12/13/04), see also State v. Brown, 03-2788, p. 6 (La.7/6/04), reh’g denied, 9/3/04; So.2d 883, 884 (1948).
State v. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
[State v.] Brown, 03-2788 at 6,[ (La.7/6/04),] 879 So.2d [1276] at 1280; [State v. Broussard, [ ] 34 So.2d [883] at 884 [ (1948) ].
State of Louisiana v. Michael James Lacour La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
rr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02)
State v. Lacour 117 So. 3d 203 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02)
State of Louisiana v. Ricky Joseph Langley La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
State v. Langley 61 So. 3d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , , See State v. Brown, 03-2788, pp. 5-6 (La.7/6/04), , quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 , 49 n. 13, 100 S.Ct.
State v. Watts 41 So. 3d 625 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
rule of lenity, State v. Carr, 99-2209, p. 4 (La.5/26/00), , the rule is not to be applied with “such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.” State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , , See State v. Brown, 03-2788, pp. 5-6 (La.7/6/04), , quoting Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37 , 49 n. 13, 100 S.Ct.
State v. Armstard 991 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
Brown, supra, at 1280 ; , (1948).
State v. Fussell 974 So. 2d 1223 La. 2008
State v. Williams, 03-3514, p. 2 (La.12/13/04), ; see also State v. Brown, 03-2788, p. 6 (La.7/6/04), , reh'g denied, 9/3/04; , (1948).
State v. Shaw 969 So. 2d 1233 La. 2007
State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02)
State v. Brown 904 So. 2d 805 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
subject to strict construction under the rule of lenity, State v. Carr, supra, the rule is not to be applied with “ ‘such unreasonable technicality as to defeat the purpose of all rules of statutory construction, which ^purpose is to ascertain and enforce the true meaning and intent of the statute.’ ” State v. Everett, 00-2998 (La.5/14/02), (quoting State v. Brous- *809 sard; , ).
State v. Williams 893 So. 2d 7 La. 2004
State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , reh'g denied, 6/21/02
State v. Brown 879 So. 2d 1276 La. 2004
State v. Everett, 00-2998, p. 12 (La.5/14/02), , reh'g denied, 6/21/02
State v. Woods 828 So. 2d 6 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
(1948), which interpreted the predecessor to La.
State v. Everett 816 So. 2d 1272 La. 2002
(1948), a case dealing with the interpretation of the predecessor to La.
State v. Finley 664 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
34 |i2So.2d 883 (1948), the supreme court construed Acts 1942, No. 45, § 2 (consisting of the same language now contained in the first sentence of LSA-R.S.
State v. Webster 664 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
(1948), the supreme court construed Acts 1942, No. 45, Sec.
State v. Smith 639 So. 2d 237 La. 1994
(1948) (citing authorities).
State v. Gaines 639 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
(1948), the supreme court construed Acts 1942, No. 45, § 2 (consisting of the same language now contained in the first sentence of LSA-R.S.
State v. Richardson 637 So. 2d 709 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
(1948), the Supreme Court construed the language of 1942 La.Acts, No. 45, § 2, (consisting of the same language now contained in the first sentence of LSA-R.S.
State v. Williams 609 So. 2d 993 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
State v. Blackwell 377 So. 2d 110 La. 1979
(1948); State v. Ambrose, 212 La.
State v. Sawyer 350 So. 2d 611 La. 1977
(1948); State v. Ambrose, 212 La.
State v. Badon 338 So. 2d 665 La. 1976
(1948), we construed this section *671 as using as measuring posts for the five year term the interval ".
State v. Bullock 311 So. 2d 242 La. 1975
Roberson v. Michigan Mutual Liability Company 90 So. 2d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1956
Defendant, however, relies upon the principle established in the Nickelberry v. Ritchie Grocery Company case, supra, and followed by us in Hastings v. Homewood Development Company, La.App., , to the effect that the legal requirements necessary to constitute an action are fulfilled when the facts of a case disclose that many factors, such as excessive heat, heavy lifting or straining or excessive exertion have caused or contributed to a physical breakdown or have accelerated its occurrence.