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. Nelson, 306 So. 2d 745.

18 citing documents.

  • Emma Bradford v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
  • Bradford v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. 237 So. 3d 648 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    App. 3 Cir.1987) ; State v. Nelson
  • State v. Franklin 520 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Johnson 514 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
  • State v. Coleman 486 So. 2d 995 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
  • State v. Walters 408 So. 2d 1337 La. 1982
  • State v. Johnson 365 So. 2d 1267 La. 1978
    (1975), "the bill of particulars is designed to permit the accused to obtain further information, in a proper case, regarding what the State intends to prove, in order that, in fairness, the accused may more properly defend himself."
  • State v. Atkins 360 So. 2d 1341 La. 1978
    [2] State v. Bailey, 261 La.
  • State v. MacKie 352 So. 2d 1297 La. 1977
    Art. 484, Official Revision Comment; State v. Perkins, La., (1976); State v. Major, La., (1975); State v. Nelson, La., (1975).
  • State v. Hopkins 351 So. 2d 474 La. 1977
    State v. Bailey, 261 La.
  • State v. Ford 349 So. 2d 300 La. 1977
  • State v. Jenkins 340 So. 2d 157 La. 1976
    We said, "* * * Without consideration of whether the contents of oral confessions are subject to pre-trial discovery in a motion for a bill of particulars or in a prayer for oyer (), there is no justification for judicial approval of patent misrepresentation on the part of the State when an item in an application for a bill of particulars seeks to discover oral confessions or inculpatory statements.
  • State v. Perkins 337 So. 2d 1145 La. 1976
    Art. 484, Official Revision Comment; State v. Major, supra, State v. Nelson, La., (1975).
  • State v. Huizar 332 So. 2d 449 La. 1976
    See, e.g., State v. Nelson, La., (1975); State v. Vince, La., (1975).
  • State v. Judson 329 So. 2d 742 La. 1976
  • State v. Nix 327 So. 2d 301 La. 1975
    State v. Daniels, 262 La.
  • State v. House 320 So. 2d 181 La. 1975
  • State v. Boothe 310 So. 2d 826 La. 1975
    Without consideration of whether the contents of oral confessions are subject to pre-trail discovery in a motion for a bill of particulars or in a prayer for oyer (), there is no justification for judicial approval of patent misrepresentation on the part of the State when an item in an application for a bill of particulars seeks to discover oral confessions or inculpatory statements.