State v. Mitchell

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Mitchell

333 So. 2d 235, 1976 La. LEXIS 4146

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedJune 2, 1976

DocketNo. 57977

StatusPublished

This text of 333 So. 2d 235 (State v. Mitchell) 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. Mitchell, 333 So. 2d 235, 1976 La. LEXIS 4146 (La. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In re: John M. Mamoulides, District Attorney, State of Louisiana applying for Writ of Review. Granted. (See Order.)

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 Thomas C. Wicker, Judge of the 24th Judicial District Court, for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 18th day of June, [236]*2361976, 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 3rd day of September, 1976, at 10 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: John M. Mamoulides, District Attorney, State of Louisiana applying for Writ of Review. Granted. (See Order.)

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 Thomas C. Wicker, Judge of the 24th Judicial District Court, for the Parish of Jefferson, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 18th day of June, [236]*2361976, 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 3rd day of September, 1976, at 10 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)

333 So. 2d 235, 1976 La. LEXIS 4146, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mitchell-la-1976.