Skip to main content
E.D. Louisiana· 3/29/2012

Doe v. Jindal

Citations

  • 851 F. Supp. 2d 995
  • 2012 WL 1068776
  • 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43818

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding Louisiana’s Prostitution statute and Crime Against Nature by Solicitation statute punish identical conduct, but only required one group to register as sex offenders was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
  • granting summary judgment to individuals with CANS convictions because they were deprived of equal protection in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment
  • “Lawrence does not speak to the solicitation of sex for money, and has little precedential force here.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Feldman, Martin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.