Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Bartley, 329 So. 2d 431.

41 citing documents.

State v. Davis 273 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
State v. Bartley , , 433 (La.
State v. Malarcher 249 So. 3d 837 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State v. Parker 76 So. 3d 55 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Collins 62 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
6, 259 (La.1976) (“[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appel
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1976) (“[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.”) (citations omitted)
State v. Kelly 54 So. 3d 1159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
("[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Sparkman 5 So. 3d 891 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
("[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.") (citations omitted); ("It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.") (citations omitted).
State v. Office 967 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
1976) ("[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.") (citations omitted); ("It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.") (citations omitted)
State of Louisiana v. Brandon J. Office La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
(“[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Cuccia 933 So. 2d 134 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
("[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents *157 nothing for our review.") (citations omitted); ("It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.") (citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. William L. Giles La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
(“[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Giles 884 So. 2d 1233 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
("[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.") (citations omitted); ("It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.") (citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Gary Dewayne Hamilton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
(“[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Hamilton 867 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
(“[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary 11fSto the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.”) (citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Elbertine Demery Sykes La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
(“[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the 2 denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.”) (citatio
State v. Sykes 857 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
("[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.") (citations omitted); (La.
State v. Toups 859 So. 2d 768 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
(“[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.”) (citations omitted); (“It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.”) (citations omitted).
State v. Marcantel 815 So. 2d 50 La. 2002
State v. Huckabay 809 So. 2d 1093 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
State v. Snyder, 98-1078, p. 37, n. 21 (La.4/14/99), n. 21 ; (La.
State v. Andy 793 So. 2d 485 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State v. Davenport, 33,961 (La.App.2d Cir.11/01/00), ; State v. Harper, 27,278 (La.App.2d Cir.08/23/95), , writ denied, 95-2318 (La.01/12/96), ; (La.App.
State v. Hampton 750 So. 2d 867 La. 1999
State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
("[W]e have uniformly held that a bill of exceptions reserved to the refusal of the trial judge to grant a motion for a new trial based on Article 851(1), relative to sufficiency of the evidence presents nothing for our review.") (citations omitted); ("It is well established in Louisiana that an assignment of error reserved to the denial of a motion for a new trial alleging that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence presents nothing for appellate review.") (citations omitted).
State v. Gay 697 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
State v. Demery, 28,396 (La.App.2d Cir. 8/21/96), .
State v. Demery 679 So. 2d 518 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
State v. Harper, 27,278 (La.App.
State v. Harper 660 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
writ denied, modified on other grounds
State v. Stewart 641 So. 2d 1086 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Dryades Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Lassiter 400 So. 2d 894 La. 1981
1st Cir.), writ denied, which affirmed the constitutionality of La.R.S.
Dryades Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Lassiter 393 So. 2d 165 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
1st Cir. 1976), writ refused
State v. Packard 389 So. 2d 56 La. 1980
The trial judge obviously believed the officers rather than the mother, over the biased witness who granted consent to search.
State v. Bennett 383 So. 2d 1236 La. 1980
Delta Bank & Trust Co. v. Lassiter 383 So. 2d 330 La. 1980
See also, First Federal Savings & (1st Cir. 1976), writ refused
State v. Dunbar 356 So. 2d 956 La. 1978
State v. Tucker 354 So. 2d 1327 La. 1978
State v. Cass 356 So. 2d 936 La. 1977
State v. Provost 352 So. 2d 661 La. 1977
State v. Gray 351 So. 2d 448 La. 1977
State v. Cook 345 So. 2d 29 La. 1977
988 , 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974)
State v. Williams 343 So. 2d 1026 La. 1977
State v. Temple 343 So. 2d 1024 La. 1977
2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); (La.
State v. Morris 340 So. 2d 195 La. 1976