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. Mays, 315 So. 2d 766.

20 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Freddie L. Burton, Jr. AKA Freddie L. Burton, AKA Freddie L. Burton, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    The Rault court also stated that the “[c]riteria for withholding permission include ‘considerations arising from the possible disruption of orderly and expeditious proceedings or from the lack of similarity between courtroom conditions and the actual conditions sought to be re-tested.’
  • State v. Burton 64 So. 3d 916 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    The Rault court also stated that the “[cjriteria for withholding permission include ‘considerations arising from the possible disruption of orderly and expeditious proceedings or from the lack of similarity between courtroom conditions and the actual conditions sought to be re-tested.’
  • State v. O'NEAL 976 So. 2d 297 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    225 , 83 L.Ed.2d 154 (1984)
  • State of Louisiana v. Ronald L. Bryant La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    Criteria for withholding permission include “considerations arising from the possible disruption of orderly and expeditious proceedings or from the lack of similarity between courtroom conditions and the actual conditions sought to be re-tested.”
  • State v. Galliano 945 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    1 Cir. 5/5/95) , , writ denied, 95-1894 (La.12/15/95), , (1975).
  • State v. Thornton 671 So. 2d 481 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Maize 655 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Hearold 567 So. 2d 132 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    225 , 83 L.Ed.2d 154 (1984); (La.
  • State v. Richardson 529 So. 2d 1301 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • State v. Pravata 522 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Troquille 493 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
    Criteria for withholding permission include “considerations arising from the possible disruption of orderly and expeditious proceedings or from the lack of similarity between courtroom conditions and the actual conditions sought to be re-tested.”
  • State v. Rault 445 So. 2d 1203 La. 1984
  • State v. Goza 408 So. 2d 1349 La. 1982
    232 , 66 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980)
  • State v. Millet 356 So. 2d 1380 La. 1978
  • State v. Schwartz 354 So. 2d 1332 La. 1978
  • State v. Brown 340 So. 2d 1306 La. 1976
  • State v. Flowers 337 So. 2d 469 La. 1976
  • State v. Bean 337 So. 2d 496 La. 1976
    State v. Batiste, La., (1975); State v. Mays, La., (1975).
  • State v. Tornabene 337 So. 2d 214 La. 1976
  • State v. Hampton 326 So. 2d 364 La. 1976
    : "The trial court has a large discretion in permitting or refusing in-court experiments.