DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Pigford, 922 So. 2d 517.

734 citing documents.

  • State v. Breedlove 213 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
  • State v. Farris 210 So. 3d 877 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
  • State v. Odums 210 So. 3d 850 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    2/22/06), ; Crossley, supra; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
  • State v. Christopher 209 So. 3d 255 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
  • State v. Ward 209 So. 3d 228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    02/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Vincent Devonte Dotson AKA Vincent Dotson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Steven Blunt AKA Steven L. Blunt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Blunt 201 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
  • State v. Matthews 200 So. 3d 895 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
  • State v. Thomas 201 So. 3d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Bell 197 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477,, pp., 5-6 (La.2/22/06), -21 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct.
  • State v. Robinson 197 So. 3d 717 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
  • State v. Blake 198 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State *185 v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.02/22/06), .
  • State v. Joyner 197 So. 3d 724 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
  • State v. Brandon 198 So. 3d 140 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 09-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477, p. 6 13 (La.2/22/06), State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96)
  • State v. Baumberger 200 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Wilson 196 So. 3d 614 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
  • State v. Lewis 195 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Freeman 194 So. 3d 1 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), ; writ denied, 09-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
  • State v. Alexander 194 So. 3d 33 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.
  • State v. Wilson 189 So. 3d 513 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Washington 188 So. 3d 350 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 09-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
  • State v. Thompson 189 So. 3d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Jackson 189 So. 3d 1150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Crossley, supra; The appellate court does not, assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh evidence.
  • State 188 So. 3d 1116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.01/14/09), .
  • State v. Jones 188 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder; State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Turner 186 So. 3d 720 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; Crossley, supra; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.
  • State v. Porter 185 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Love 185 So. 3d 136 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Jaime Brooks Day AKA - Jamie Day La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Day 182 So. 3d 1128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford , 05-477 (La.2/22/06), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Patrick Michael Shelvin AKA - Patrick Shelvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact- finder.‖ State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Holder 181 So. 3d 918 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.02/22/06), .
  • State v. Gaubert 179 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    The standard for determining an insufficiency of evidence, claim is well-settled.- As the Louisiana Supreme Court stated in State v. Pigford, 05-0477, pp. 5-6 (La.2/22/06), -21 , the standard is as follows: In reviewing the sufficiency of evidence, an appellate court must determine that the evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, or a mixture of both, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to convince a rational trier of fact that all of the element
  • State v. Shelvin 181 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State v. Williams 181 So. 3d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State v. Patterson 184 So. 3d 739 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Crossley, supra; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 09-0310 (La.11/6/09), .
  • State v. Mitchell 181 So. 3d 800 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Crossley, supra.
  • State v. Dale 180 So. 3d 528 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Johnson, supra, at .
  • State of Louisiana v. Barry Roy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Roy 177 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Glenn Von Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.‖ State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Moody 178 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Apodaca 180 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.02/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.01/14/09), , writ denied, 2009-0310 (La.11/06/09), .
  • State v. Bell 179 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Clark 181 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.02/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/04/96), .
  • State v. Bailey 180 So. 3d 442 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Crossley, supra.
  • State v. Mims 181 So. 3d 160 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Dotie, 43,819 (La.App.2d Cir.1/14/09), , writ denied, 09-0310 (La.11/6/09), .