Louisiana v. Hadman
| Docket Number | 2012-KK-1986 |
| Decision Date | 19 March 2013 |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
47 cases
-
State v. Gravois
...to quash is exclusively a question of law, appellate courts review the ruling de novo . See State v. Hamdan , 12-1986 (La. 3/19/13); 112 So.3d 812, 816. La. Const. Art. I, § 13 requires the State to inform the accused in a criminal prosecution of the nature and cause of the accusation again......
-
State v. Armstead
... ... The decision by a trial judge to grant or deny this type of motion to quash is solely a question of law. 8 See Byrd, 96–2302 at p. 18, 708 So.2d at 411. Thus, we review the trial judge's ruling on this motion to quash under a de novo standard. See State v. Hamdan, 12–1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), 112 So.3d 812, 816. See also Schmolke, 12–0406 at p. 4, 108 So.3d at 299. Under this standard of review, we do not defer to any factual findings made by the trial judge as those findings of fact regarding the merits of the defense are unauthorized. See id. B ... ...
-
State v. Franklin
... ... 14:138 A(1). 4 La.C.Cr.P. art. 62 A states: “The attorney general shall exercise supervision over all district attorneys in the state.” 5 In contrast, we apply a de novo standard of review when reviewing rulings on motions to quash involving solely legal issues. See State v. Hamdan, 12–1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), 112 So.3d 812, 816 ; State v. Lawson, 13–0812, p. 6 (La.App. 4 Cir. 11/20/13), 129 So.3d 792, 796 n. 3. 6 A district attorney, because of education and experience, would have a difficult burden in convincing a court that his consent to enter into a diversionary ... ...
-
State v. Lambert
...one-half years, and this is analogous or even equivalent to proving a conviction from a foreign jurisdiction. Citing State v. Hamdan, 12–1986 (La.3/19/13), 112 So.3d 812, the State pointed out that in analyzing predicate convictions out of foreign jurisdictions, the trial court is not confi......
Get Started for Free
