State v. Fitzgerald

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Fitzgerald

174 So. 2d 134, 247 La. 726

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMay 4, 1965

DocketNo. 47745

StatusPublished

This text of 174 So. 2d 134 (State v. Fitzgerald) 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

State v. Fitzgerald, 174 So. 2d 134, 247 La. 726 (La. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

In re: State of Louisiana through Frank H. Langridge, District Attorney applying for Writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

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 Robert L. Rivarde, Judge ad hoc of the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 6th day of October, 1965, 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 his attorney 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

In re: State of Louisiana through Frank H. Langridge, District Attorney applying for Writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

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 Robert L. Rivarde, Judge ad hoc of the 24th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 6th day of October, 1965, 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 his attorney 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)

174 So. 2d 134, 247 La. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fitzgerald-la-1965.