Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Pailet, 165 So. 2d 294.

33 citing documents.

State v. Jackson 926 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
2144 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1374 (1967); , (1964).
In Re Cooks 694 So. 2d 892 La. 1997
(1964) (holding that the statutory list of recusal grounds is exclusive, not illustrative, and there must be a statutory ground for recusing a judge); (La.App.
In Re Lemoine 686 So. 2d 837 La. 1997
Pierce v. Charity Hosp. of Louisiana 550 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
Christian v. Christian 535 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
(1964); State v. LaBorde, 214 La.
Rollo v. Dison 402 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
15:303 which set forth the grounds for recusation of judges in criminal actions, , (1964) held: "For a judge to have an interest in a case within the meaning of the law, * * * some fact must exist that leads to the conclusion that it is to the judge's personal advantage, whether he would be influenced by such advantage or not, to decide the case or to seek to bring about a decision t
Southern Builders, Inc. v. Carla Charcoal, Inc. 357 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
State v. Perkins 337 So. 2d 1145 La. 1976
2144 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1374 (1967); , (1964).
State v. Collins 288 So. 2d 602 La. 1974
(1964), this Court held that a trial judge may overrule a motion to recuse himself without referring it to another judge where the allegations of the pleading are mere general statements or conclusions.
State v. Griffin 288 So. 2d 636 La. 1974
State v. Edgecombe 275 So. 2d 740 La. 1973
See, also, , , in which we held that `all evidence relating to a pending criminal case which is in possession of the State is privileged and not subject to inspection by the accused unless and until it is offered in evidence at the trial.
Discon v. Saray, Inc. 272 So. 2d 439 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
(1964), the Louisiana Supreme Court considered Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the first cause of the five causes enumerated under that article was the recusation of the judge on the ground that he was interested in the cause.
State v. Cripps 250 So. 2d 382 La. 1971
and State v. Clack, 254 La.
State v. Coney 246 So. 2d 793 La. 1971
State v. Square 244 So. 2d 200 La. 1971
State v. Pesson 235 So. 2d 568 La. 1970
and State v. Sharp, 248 La.
State v. Nails 234 So. 2d 184 La. 1970
State v. Fink 231 So. 2d 360 La. 1970
State v. Redden 230 So. 2d 817 La. 1970
State v. Anderson 229 So. 2d 329 La. 1969
295 , ; , ; State v. Shourds, 224 La.
State v. Brumfield 229 So. 2d 76 La. 1969
State v. Mattio, 212 La.
State v. Clack 222 So. 2d 857 La. 1969
See, also, , , in which we held that “all evidence relating to a pending criminal case which is in possession of the State is privileged and not subject to inspection by the accused unless and until it is offered in evidence at the trial.
State v. Crook 221 So. 2d 473 La. 1969
State v. Hall 218 So. 2d 320 La. 1969
500 , (police motion picture of defendant in criminal act) ; , (wire-tap recordings); State v. Bickham, 239 La.
State v. Manuel 217 So. 2d 369 La. 1968
State v. Mattio, 212 La.
State v. Hopper 203 So. 2d 222 La. 1967
State v. Hunter 195 So. 2d 273 La. 1967
State v. Reese 194 So. 2d 729 La. 1967
19 , ; , ; and State v. Sharp, 248 La.
State v. Johnson 192 So. 2d 135 La. 1966
State v. Brown 186 So. 2d 576 La. 1966
928 , ; , ; State v. Bickham, 239 La.
State v. Sharp 182 So. 2d 517 La. 1966
LRS 14:87, as it read when the charged offense was committed, defined abortion as the performance of certain acts "for the purpose of procuring premature delivery of the embryo or fetus; * * , , the defendant was charged with the crime of abortion, the statute there being the same as that under which this accused was convicted.
State v. Lejeune 181 So. 2d 392 La. 1965
861 , , , such •evidence is admissible only when it is neces-^ sary to rebut an inference that the act with which the accused is charged was committed by accident or mistake.
State v. Dickson 180 So. 2d 403 La. 1965
44:3; , (1964); State v. Dorsey, 207 La.