 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Smart, NO. 05-KA-814,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for distribution of cocaine under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:967A where undercover agents testified that they bought cocaine from defendant; also defendant failed to present evidence to show mandatory enhanced sentence under Habitual Offender Law, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:529.1, was excessive.
|
|||||
| State v. Stanfield, NO. 05-KA-839,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine. Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress because stop had occurred, under Fourth Amendment and La. Const. art. I, § 5, and officer could not articulate sufficient knowledge of the facts that might have given him reasonable suspicions of criminal activity.
|
|||||
| State v. Williams, NO. 05-KA-673,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant failed to timely object to responsive verdict, he was entitled to reversal only if evidence was insufficient to support conviction of charged offense, forcible rape, and there was physical evidence to support victim's account and conviction for simple rape, such as the victim's swollen lip and fresh bruises on her arm.
|
|||||
| State v. Wingerter, NO. 05-KA-697,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed defendant's convictions and his attorney's motion to withdraw because the appellate court found there was no basis for reversing defendant's conviction for possession of heroin and theft of a gun or any non-frivolous ruling.
|
|||||
| State v. Young, NO. 05-KA-795,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court held that consecutive sentences imposed following defendant's convictions for distribution of cocaine in a drug free zone were excessive in violation of La. Const. art. I, § 20 and U.S. Const. amend. VIII because the evidence did not establish that defendant had a history of selling drugs or was a large-scale seller.
|
|||||
| Straughter v. Gov't Emples. Ins. Co., NO. 05-CA-699,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In family's suit against trucking company and insurer, arising out of a traffic accident, trial court did not manifestly err in granting motion for involuntary dismissal of suit because trial court weighed credibility of witnesses; record indicated factual inconsistencies within family as to what happened, and photos did not support allegations.
|
|||||
| Verdin v. Rogers, NO. 05-CA-664,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court affirmed the grant of an exception of no right of action by a home inspector as the inspector had not assumed a duty to protect the victim, an electrician, who was fatally electrocuted while making repairs a home the inspector had inspected two years prior.
|
|||||
| Young v. Gremillion, NO. 05-CA-802,
COURT OF APPEAL OF LOUISIANA, FIFTH CIRCUIT, March 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting an exception to prescription because insurer's unconditional payment of injured motorist's debt on her car was voluntary and not part of a settlement of her property damage claim, thus La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22:661 did not apply and payment was an acknowledgment of liability that interrupted the running of prescription.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
