In re Greene

257 So. 2d 695, 260 La. 1015, 1972 La. LEXIS 4811

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In re Greene. Read the opinion of the Court — 260 La. 859 →

Supreme Court of Louisiana·Decided February 24, 1972·No. No. 52192·Published

Opinions

In re: Floyd F. Greene applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. The trial court ruling is correct. See our per curiam in Docket No. 52,184, 257 So.2d 433 with regard to the relator’s previous application.

DIXON, J., dissents from the refusal to grant the writ.

The district attorney in Louisiana has no power to grant immunity, except in public bribery cases. Here, no one has been charged with bribery. See Art. XIX, sec. 13, La.Const. Art. I, sec. 11 La.Const. prohibits requiring any person to testify against himself, “except as provided in this Constitution.”

BARHAM, J., concurs with reasons.

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

In re: Floyd F. Greene applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

Writ denied. The trial court ruling is correct. See our per curiam in Docket No. 52,184, 257 So.2d 433 with regard to the relator’s previous application.

DIXON, J., dissents from the refusal to grant the writ.

BARHAM, J., concurs with reasons.

In re Greene, 257 So. 2d 695, 260 La. 1015, 1972 La. LEXIS 4811 (La. 1972).

Pincite

257 So. 2d 695 (In re Greene) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor

378 U.S. 52 (Supreme Court, 1964)

Opinions

Related