State ex rel. Anderson v. Clerk of Court
State ex rel. Anderson v. Clerk of Court, 648 So. 2d 909 (La. 1995).
Cited by
- Robert Taylor Versus State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
- Quvadias Ruffin Versus State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
- State of Louisiana Versus Jerel Smith La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2024
- State Of Louisiana v. Leonard Evans, Jr. La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
- State of Louisiana Versus George Cepriano Jr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
- State Of Louisiana v. Kyron Folse La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2020
- State ex rel. Stockman v. State 222 So. 3d 1262 La. 2017
- State ex rel. Hensley v. State 876 So. 2d 78 La. 2004
- State Ex Rel. Hensley v. State 876 So. 2d 78 La. 2004
- State ex rel. Ward v. State 741 So. 2d 658 La. 1999
- Shelton v. Louisiana Dept. of Corrections 691 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
- State ex rel. Gray v. State 657 So. 2d 1005 La. 1995
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Stewart v. Lombard 637 So. 2d 496
- State Ex Rel. Nash v. State 604 So. 2d 1054
- Eisman v. Silvers 617 So. 2d 900
- State ex rel. Thomas v. 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge 516 So. 2d 124
Opinion text
In re Anderson, Rudolph; — Plaintiffs); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writ; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “B” No. 303 — 669; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 94KW-0429. Granted. The district court is ordered to provide relator with a copy of the charging document in his case. Although as a general matter incarcerated indigents must demonstrate a particularized need for a court document before receiving a copy of it free of charge, see, e.g., Stewart v. Lombard, 94-0040 (La. 6/3/94), 637 So.2d 496 ; cf. United States v. MacCollum, 426 U.S. 317, 325 , 96 S.Ct. 2086, 2091 , 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976); State ex rel. Nash v. State, 604 So.2d 1054 (La.App. 1st Cir.1992); LSA — R.S. 44:32(C)(l)(a), the bill of information or grand jury indictment charging them with committing a crime form an exception to that rule. La.C.Cr.P. art. 498; see, e.g., State ex rel. Foret v. State, 617 So.2d 900 (La.1993); State v. Martin, 516 So.2d 124 (La.1987). As to the other documents he requests, relator’s application is denied. He has not demonstrated the required particularized need. *910 See MacCollum, 426 U.S. at 329 , 96 S.Ct. at 2093 (Blaekmun, J., concurring). LEMMON, J., not on panel.