Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. McGinnis, 927 So. 2d 283.

27 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. David Junior Patton La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana Versus Rondell M. Lasalle La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
  • Yolande Schexnayder & Son, Inc. Versus Parish of St. James La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2022
    4/28/06), Bally's Louisiana, Inc. v. Louisiana Gaming Control Board, 99–2617, p. 7 (La.
  • Fluid Disposal Specialties, Inc. v. UniFirst Corporation La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
  • State v. Moore 215 So. 3d 951 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2017
  • Lomont v. Myer-Bennett 210 So. 3d 435 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    4/28/06), (the law of the case doctrine is the proper procedural principle, as opposed to res judicata, for describing the relationship between prior judgments by trial and appellate courts rendered within the same case).
  • State v. Brown 176 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    4 Cir. 8/17/05) , , writ denied, 06-0040 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Lestrick 128 So. 3d 421 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    App. 5 Cir. 10/6/05), -485 , writ denied,, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Callahan 106 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    5 Cir. 10/6/05), , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Trim 107 So. 3d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    5 Cir. 10/6/05) , -486 , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Nguyen 88 So. 3d 511 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    5 Cir. 10/6/05) , , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • Judson v. Davis 81 So. 3d 712 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4th Cir.8/17/05), -59 , writ denied, 06-0040 (La.4/28/06), , cert.
  • Lee J. Monlezun, M.D. v. Lyon Interests, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
  • Monlezun v. Lyon Interests, Inc. 76 So. 3d 628 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4 Cir. 8/17/05), (quoting Petition of Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, ), unit denied, 06-40 (La.4/28/06), , cert.
  • State ex rel. Division of Administration, Office of Risk Management v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. 56 So. 3d 1236 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    4th Cir.8/17/05), -59 , writ denied, 06-0040 (La.4/28/06), , cert.
  • State v. Butler 15 So. 3d 1091 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    5 Cir. 10/6/05) , , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Chism 3 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    5 Cir. 10/6/05), , unit denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Segura 979 So. 2d 524 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    5 Cir. 10/6/05) , , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Bush 977 So. 2d 1012 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    That decision was reversed in State v. Bush, 40,736-KW, writ denied, 2005-2387 (La.4/28/06), , finding that the provisions of La.
  • State v. Taylor 973 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    5 Cir. 10/6/05), , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Allen 955 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    5 Cir. 10/6/05) , , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State v. Sosa 948 So. 2d 236 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    5 Cir. 10/6/05) , -486 , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), .
  • Distinguished Champagne & Rodgers Realty Co. v. Henning 947 So. 2d 39 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    4 Cir. 8/17/05), , writ denied, 06-40 (La.4/28/06), .
  • State of Louisiana v. J. M. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    4/28/06), where the fifth circuit held that it was not error for the trial court to have denied the defendant’s request to sequester the victim.
  • State v. JM 941 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    App. 5 Cir. 10/06/05), , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), , where the fifth circuit held that it was not error for the trial court to have denied the defendant's request to sequester the victim.
  • State v. J.M. 941 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    App. 5 Cir. 10/06/05), , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), , where the fifth circuit held that it was not error for the trial court to have denied the defendant’s request to sequester the victim.
  • State v. Galliano 945 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    5 Cir. 10/6/05) , , writ denied, 05-2469 (La.4/28/06), , where this Court declined to address issues that the defendant did not brief.