State v. Sandoloski
Citations
- 124 La. 398
- 50 So. 433
- 1909 La. LEXIS 477
Syllabus
<p>Mandamus (§ 61*) — Criminal Prosecutions.</p> <p>Accused in a nonappealable criminal case is not entitled, merely because of the nonappealable character of'the case, to test before judgment the correctness of the trial judge’s rulings upon interlocutory points; and hence one, against whom an information was filed, charging the soliciting and receiving of orders for the sale of intoxicating liquors at retail in a parish where such retailing was prohibited, could not, before trial, apply to the Supreme Court for mandamus to compel the lower court to ordér a bill of particulars previously denied.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- observing that “[a] plaintiff is not required to anticipate and plead around affirmative defenses raised by a defendant”
- observing that “[a] plaintiff is not required to anticipate and plead around affirmative defenses raised by a defendant” (quotation and brackets omitted)
- noting that the First, Second, and Seventh Circuits hold that a public accommodation is not limited to physical structures, unlike the Third, Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth circuits, which hold that a public accommodation must be, or have a connection to, a physical place
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nicholls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.