Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Hodgeson, 305 So. 2d 421.

78 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Jordan D. Johnson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana v. Curtis Roy Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
[footnote omitted] and decisions there cited.
State of Louisiana v. Corlious C. Dyson AKA Corlious Corall Dyson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
and decisions there cited.
State v. Dyson 220 So. 3d 785 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
and decisions there cited.
State of Louisiana v. Marcus Donte Reed 200 So. 3d 291 La. 2016
1979) (reversible error if judge makes any comment expressing or implying his or her opinion with regard to a material issue); (La.
State v. Coleman 133 So. 3d 9 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana v. Robert James Thomas La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
and decisions there 3 cited.
State v. Thomas 114 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
and decisions there |4cited.
State of Louisiana v. Louis Joseph George La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Holland, 544 So.2d at 465, citing
State of Louisiana v. Michael D. Patterson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Patterson 83 So. 3d 1209 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State of Louisiana v. Michael Jason Miller La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Miller 49 So. 3d 1028 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State of Louisiana v. Toby James Fruge La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Fruge 34 So. 3d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Stewart 15 So. 3d 276 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Holland, 544 So.2d at 465 , citing
State v. Camper 996 So. 2d 571 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State of Louisiana v. Mitchell Pat Mayeux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Mayeux 949 So. 2d 520 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
State v. Thomas 938 So. 2d 1178 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Wilson, supra, (La.
State v. Morris 917 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Darwin Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Gauthier 916 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State of Louisiana v. Vernon Leon Cox La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay Rule The Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev.
State v. Cox 876 So. 2d 932 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Comment, The Co-Conspirator Exception to the Hearsay Rule The Limits of Its Logic, 37 La.L.Rev.
State v. Grainer 834 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Nightengale 818 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
State v. Wilson 806 So. 2d 854 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2001
State v. Offray 797 So. 2d 764 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
State v. Weaver 775 So. 2d 613 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
State v. Letulier 750 So. 2d 784 La. 1998
State v. Lott 712 So. 2d 289 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1998
and decisions there cited.
State v. Walker 710 So. 2d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Brown 702 So. 2d 744 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Lutcher 700 So. 2d 961 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State v. Colligan 679 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
and decisions there cited.
State v. Taylor 621 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Thibodeaux v. Stivers 609 So. 2d 291 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
In affirming the trial court's denial of the defendant's challenge for cause, for the rule that a juror's connection to a witness or victim must be such that one must reasonably conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict.
Cole Oil & Tire Co., Inc. v. Davis 567 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
State v. Neumeyer 561 So. 2d 944 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
the court held that print-out sheets of business records stored in a computer were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, if relevant and material, without the necessity of producing the individual who made the entries in the regular course of business if it was shown that:
State v. Toups 546 So. 2d 549 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
State v. Deboue 552 So. 2d 355 La. 1989
State v. Holland 544 So. 2d 461 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
State v. Ray 542 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Professional Credit Service of New Orleans, Inc. v. Harris 539 So. 2d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
Defendant counters by asserting that Ochsner’s business records should not be allowed into evidence because plaintiff failed to present an adequate foundation proving the authenticity of the business records, and because there were discrepancies as to charges on the printout that Prima could not explain.
State v. Richardson 529 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
where no error was found in allowing a third cousin of the victim to be a juror, where the juror's wife was an unspecified relative of the victim and no error was found in denying the challenge.
Touro Infirmary v. Tonry 522 So. 2d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
See generally *1269 -29 (La.1975).
State v. Bryant 521 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
and decisions there cited.
Hemperly v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. 516 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Kinney Plantation, Inc. 498 So. 2d 1211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
ccurrence recorded, (b) firsthand knowledge of the entrant, (c) existence of a business or professional duty to record or report the facts in the regular course of business, (d) completeness and honest appearance of the books, (e) absence of fraud in making the entries or in destroying the *1213 supporting memoranda and (f) perhaps whether the book belongs to a third party.” the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted the Nebraska and Mississippi rules for the admission of computer records and print-out

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by