Archive of LSCR Articles
Showing results for LSCR volume 13 LSCR issue 7 | Jump to a direct Volume/Issue
|
| PROPERTY
| | 1. | "Societal expectations" test reinstated by legislature.
Willis-Knighton Medical Cntr. v. Caddo-Shreveport Sales and Use Tax Comm'n, 04-C-0473 (La. 6/22/05) (on
reh'g) [8 pp.]
From LSCR Volume 13, Issue 7 In Willis-Knighton Med. Cntr. v. Caddo-Shreveport Sales and Use Tax Comm'n, 2004-C-0473 (La. 4/1/05) ("Willis-Knighton I"), reported in the ... view full summary | | BAR / DISCIPLINARY / ETHICS
| | 2. | Discipline imposed for accusations of impropriety against judge.
In re J. Clemille Simon, 2004-B-2947 (La. 06/29/05) [26 pp.]
From LSCR Volume 13, Issue 7 The ODC filed formal charges in three counts against respondent attorney Simon: &nbs... view full summary | | CIVIL PROCEDURE
| | 3. | Failure to request service within 90 days requires dismissal, even after answer has been filed.
Lea Sinclair Filson v. Windsor Court Hotel, 2004-CC-2893 (La. 06/29/05) [18 pp.]
From LSCR Volume 13, Issue 7 Plaintiffs filed a petition on March 25, 2003 against several defendants, including Keta Construction ("Keta"), and requested that service b... view full summary | | CRIMINAL
| | 4. | Capital conviction affirmed: erroneous refusal to admit exculpatory letter harmless.
State v. Juniors, 03-KA-2425 (La. 6/29/05) [76 pp.]
From LSCR Volume 13, Issue 7 Defendant Juniors appeals his capital conviction and sentence. Juniors's partner in the crime, Williams, pled guilty and turned State's evid... view full summary | | 5. | Capital conviction affirmed: Hearsay "other crimes" evidence was harmless error.
State v. Allen, 2003-KA-2418 (La. 6/29/05) [40 pp.]
From LSCR Volume 13, Issue 7 Defendant Allen was convicted and sentenced to death for the stabbing murder of a bait shop owner in Coushatta. At trial, witnesses testifie... view full summary | | 6. | Written consent to warrantless search is not inadmissible hearsay.
State v. Smith, 04-KK-3140 (La. 6/24/05) [2 pp.]
From LSCR Volume 13, Issue 7 The district court granted a motion to suppress seized evidence, on the grounds that the witness who consented to the search for the evidenc... view full summary |
|