Hoyt v. State

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Hoyt v. State

267 So. 2d 726, 263 La. 231, 1972 La. LEXIS 5493

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedOctober 26, 1972

DocketNo. 52843

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 So. 2d 726 (Hoyt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoyt v. State, 267 So. 2d 726, 263 La. 231, 1972 La. LEXIS 5493 (La. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Field V. Gremillion, Judge of the Ninth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Rapides, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 19th day of January, 1973, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock ’A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Field V. Gremillion, Judge of the Ninth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Rapides, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 19th day of January, 1973, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock ’A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 So. 2d 726, 263 La. 231, 1972 La. LEXIS 5493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoyt-v-state-la-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack