 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Jones, NO. 05-KA-735,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's 40-year sentence at hard labor for manslaughter, the maximum allowed under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:31(B), was not excessive considering that he shot the victim at least four times in the face, and admitted that he had a previous altercation with the victim and had armed himself prior to this meeting because of the previous altercation.
|
|||||
| State v. McCoil, NO. 05-KA-658,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion to continue sentencing after he pled guilty to distribution of cocaine because he failed to file a written motion to continue sentencing seven days prior to the hearing, as required by La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 707. He had already obtained one continuance for sentencing.
|
|||||
| State v. Reed, NO. 05-KA-801,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress because the officer clearly advised defendant of his Miranda rights, and the officer did not threaten or coerce defendant, nor did the officer promise defendant anything in exchange for his statement.
|
|||||
| State v. Rose, NO. 05-KA-770,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied as 1) detective advised him of his rights under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:451; 2) he waived his rights; 3) his statement was not coerced; and 4) he did not point out any alleged inconsistencies in his statement that corroborated his claim that he did not take part in armed robbery of a credit union.
|
|||||
| State v. Trackling, NO. 2004-KA-0759,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: On remand, appellate court held there was sufficient evidence to have convicted defendant of attempted sexual battery where defendant contended there was no physical evidence to support the victim's testimony, but the lack of any did not contradict the victim's account and jury observed demeanor of witnesses and apparently found victim credible.
|
|||||
| Tastet v. May, NO. 05-CA-755,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court did not err in granting summary judgment to, inter alia, parish and road district, finding plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence for claim intersection was defective under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:2800; if driver pulled up to intersection as La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 32:123 required, adequate sight line existed to see oncoming traffic.
|
|||||
| White v. Claire's Boutique, Inc., NO. 05-CA-653,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, February 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of parents' suit was vacated and remanded because the trial court erred in dismissing the suit for failure to follow an interlocutory judgment of which the parents did not have proper notice, when the parents were ordered to serve the grandmother within 30 days by a minute entry, which was not mailed or served on the parents.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
