State v. Stogner

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided October 13, 2003

Supreme Court of Louisiana · decided 2003-10-13

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently August 2004

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Writ granted. Because it appears that defendant’s Motion to View Pre Sentence Investigation Report and Proffered Exhibit # 1 was granted by order of a single judge of the court of appeal, it is ordered that the action be vacated and this matter remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the motion by a three judge panel, after providing the parties with an appropriate opportunity to brief the issue. State v. Will, 02-2363 (La.9/13/02), 824 So.2d 1192 ; Gootee Const. Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins. Co., 2000-2341 (La.11/13/00), 775 So.2d 1044 . Briefing on the merits of the appeal is stayed pending the court of appeal’s resolution of the defendant’s motion.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 866 So. 2d 397 - State v. Stogner

Relies on State v. Boson · 775 So. 2d 1044 - Gootee Const. Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-10-13

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1In re State of Louisiana; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 99-K-4348 D; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KA 03-1272.

¶2Writ granted. Because it appears that defendant’s Motion to View Pre-Sentence Investigation Report and Proffered Exhibit # 1 was granted by order of a single judge of the court of appeal, it is ordered that the action be vacated and this matter remanded to the court of appeal for consideration of the motion by a three judge panel, after providing the parties with an appropriate opportunity to brief the issue. State v. Will, 02-2363 (La.9/13/02), 824 So.2d 1192; Gootee Const. Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins. Co., 2000-2341 (La.11/13/00), 775 So.2d 1044. Briefing on the merits of the appeal is stayed pending the court of appeal’s resolution of the defendant’s motion.

JOHNSON, J., would deny the writ.