State v. Varnado
Supreme Court of Louisiana
1DissentO’Niell, Chief Justice
The granting of a rehearing in this case became necessary when one of the four subscribers to the original opinion retired from the bench before the expiration of the time allowed by law for the defendants to apply for a rehearing. The three remaining justices who had subscribed to the opinion did not constitute a quorum, according to Section 4 of Article VII of the Constitution, and therefore did not have authority to deny the application for a rehearing.
The rehearing has not affected my opinion that the bill of information — being couched in the words of the statute creating and defining…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Ledbetter v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- Peters v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1899
- State v. DarkSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1940
- State v. MaloneySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1905
- State v. McClellanSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1923
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.