DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Nails, 234 So. 2d 184.

31 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Jaime Brooks Day La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Day 158 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
  • State v. Balfa 506 So. 2d 1369 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
    (1970) presents a situation similar to the instant case.
  • State v. Nash 494 So. 2d 1329 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    State v. Foy, supra; State v. Humphrey, supra; , (1970).
  • Watermeier v. Watermeier 462 So. 2d 1272 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
    Other cases allowing minor children to testify, age six or less, include: [four years old]; [five years old]; , State v. Richie, supra , [six years old].
  • State v. Garay 453 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1984
  • State v. Gabriel 450 So. 2d 611 La. 1984
  • State v. Taylor 430 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Art. 921; State v. Nails, supra, [ , ].
  • State v. Davenport 399 So. 2d 201 La. 1981
  • State v. Ireland 377 So. 2d 299 La. 1979
    State v. Johnson, 149 La.
  • State v. Martin 376 So. 2d 300 La. 1979
  • State v. Daniel 378 So. 2d 1361 La. 1979
    (1970); State v. Johnson, 149 La.
  • State v. Breaux 366 So. 2d 1375 La. 1978
    (1970) sets forth the rule that defense is entitled to production of a witness' pre-trial statements for impeachment purposes when defense counsel has shown that a material statement in the document is contrary to the witness' sworn testimony.
  • State v. Lovett 359 So. 2d 163 La. 1978
  • State v. Francis 337 So. 2d 487 La. 1976
    (1970); State v. Milford, 225 La.
  • State v. Bolton 337 So. 2d 446 La. 1976
    The state's position and that of the trial court in its per curiam is that defendant had not laid the proper foundation for obtaining the report for use in impeaching the witness because he had not shown that one or more of the material statements therein were contrary to the sworn testimony of the witness, , (1970); State v. Whitfield, 253 La.
  • State v. Babin 319 So. 2d 367 La. 1975
  • State v. Kuykendall 319 So. 2d 326 La. 1975
    735 , (1972); , (1970); State v. Whitfield, 253 La.
  • State v. Foret 315 So. 2d 278 La. 1975
    575 , (1972); , (1970); R.S.
  • State v. Lee 311 So. 2d 876 La. 1975
    (1970), we set forth the prerequisites with which a defendant must comply in order to be entitled to the production of a prior written statement of a State witness.
  • State v. Nelson 306 So. 2d 745 La. 1975
    (1970); State v. Hunter, 250 La.
  • State v. Adams 302 So. 2d 599 La. 1974
  • State v. Pace 301 So. 2d 323 La. 1974
    (1970); State v. Milford, 225 La.
  • State v. Tharp 284 So. 2d 536 La. 1973
    (1970); State v. Franklin, 263 La.
  • State v. Holloway 274 So. 2d 699 La. 1973
    1017 , (1971); , (1970).
  • State v. Chaney 273 So. 2d 259 La. 1973
  • State v. Rose 271 So. 2d 863 La. 1973
    44:3; , (1970), and the cases cited therein.
  • State v. Cryer 263 So. 2d 895 La. 1972
    (1970); State v. Whitfield, 253 La.
  • State v. Dorsey 264 So. 2d 644 La. 1972
  • State v. Curry 264 So. 2d 583 La. 1972
    (1970) and cases cited therein; see also State v. Douglas, 256 La.
  • State v. Mitchell 246 So. 2d 814 La. 1971
    ession of the accused, and at the time of the trial a defendant is not entitled to the production of a prior written statement of a witness unless the proper foundation has been laid for impeachment, the witness denying making the statement or defense counsel showing that the report indicates that one or more of the material statements therein are contrary to the sworn testimony.” , (1970).