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. Calloway, 1 So. 3d 417.

278 citing documents.

  • State v. FFQ 73 So. 3d 536 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    State v. Calloway, 07-2306, p. 10 (La.1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. Shawn Shelton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1/21/09), (citations 29 omitted).
  • State v. Shelton 75 So. 3d 512 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Calloway, 07-2306, p. 10 (La.1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State v. Patton 68 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La.1/21/09), (per curiam).
  • State of Louisiana v. Ron Stewart Martin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State v. Martin 66 So. 3d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    A reviewing court may intrude on the plenary discretion of the fact finder “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” State v. Calloway, 07-2306, p. 10 (La.1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. R. K. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. Brock Anthony Lafitte La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State v. Lafitte 63 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    A reviewing court may intrude on the plenary discretion of the fact finder “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” State v. Calloway, 07-2306, p. 10 (La.1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State v. R.K. 64 So. 3d 426 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    A reviewing court may intrude on |sthe plenary discretion of the fact finder “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” State v. Calloway, 07-2306, p. 10 (La.1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. Damien Orbro La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State v. ORBRO 64 So. 3d 410 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    A reviewing court may intrude on the plenary discretion of the fact finder “only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law.” State v. Calloway, 07-2806, p. 10 (La.1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State of Louisiana v. Nicholas Courville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    1/21/09), (citations omitted).
  • State v. Craddock 62 So. 3d 791 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Calloway, 07-2306, pp. 1-2 (La.1/21/09), (per curiam).
  • State v. Baker 58 So. 3d 571 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
  • State v. Dillard 55 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
  • State v. Loper 48 So. 3d 1263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See State v. Calloway, 2007-2306, pp. 1-2, 10-12 (La.1/21/09), 422-23 (per curiam).
  • State v. Burns 48 So. 3d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La.1/21/09), .
  • State v. Garner 47 So. 3d 584 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Calloway, 07-2306 (La.1/21/09), .
  • State v. Blackson 46 So. 3d 810 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La .1/21/09), .
  • State v. Hall 46 So. 3d 214 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La.1/21/09)
  • State v. Givens 41 So. 3d 589 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    State v. Calloway, 07-2306 (La.1/21/09), .
  • State v. Thurman 30 So. 3d 1185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Dykes 30 So. 3d 284 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • State v. Morris 22 So. 3d 1002 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Calloway, 07-2306, pp. 1-2 (La.1/21/09), (per curiam).
  • State v. Calloway 15 So. 3d 384 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Dell 10 So. 3d 894 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Black 12 So. 3d 1014 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    nally rejects the exculpatory hypothesis of innocence offered by a defendant’s own testimony, an appellate court’s task in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence under the Due Process Clause is at an end unless an alternative hypothesis “is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not ‘have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Calloway, 2007-2306 (La.1/21/09), , citing Captville and Jackson v. Virginia, supra.