You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

State ex rel. Grant v. State

Citations: 793 So. 2d 190; 2001 La. LEXIS 1894; 2001 WL 685569Docket: No. 2000-KH-2731

Court: Supreme Court of Louisiana; June 1, 2001; Louisiana; State Supreme Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

Perry M. Grant, the plaintiff, applied for supervisory and/or remedial writs in the 15th Judicial District Court of Acadia Parish, case number 41,178, which was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, under case number KH-00-00078. The legal framework referenced includes Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8, along with precedential cases: State ex rel. Glover v. State (1995), State v. Parker (1998), and State v. Penns (1999). The denial indicates a rejection of the plaintiff's request for relief, affirming the lower court's ruling without further elaboration.

Legal Issues Addressed

Applicability of Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs

Application: The plaintiff's application for supervisory and/or remedial writs was denied, indicating the court's decision to uphold the lower court's ruling.

Reasoning: Perry M. Grant, the plaintiff, applied for supervisory and/or remedial writs in the 15th Judicial District Court of Acadia Parish, case number 41,178, which was subsequently denied by the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, under case number KH-00-00078.

Precedential Impact of Case Law

Application: The cases cited, including State ex rel. Glover v. State, State v. Parker, and State v. Penns, likely influenced the court's decision to deny the writs based on established precedent.

Reasoning: The legal framework referenced includes Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8, along with precedential cases: State ex rel. Glover v. State (1995), State v. Parker (1998), and State v. Penns (1999).

Timeliness under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 930.8

Application: The denial of the writs suggests that the application may not have met the timeliness requirements as outlined under Article 930.8, although the court did not provide specific reasoning.

Reasoning: The legal framework referenced includes Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 930.8.