Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Martens, 338 So. 2d 95.
-
State in the Interest of T. J.
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
art. 898 (see Official Revised Comment (b))
-
State ex rel. T. J.
219 So. 3d 414
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
art. 898 (see Official Revised Comment (b))
-
State of Louisiana v. Ronald G. Grudewicz AKA Ronald G. Grideiocz AKA Ronald G. Grudewcz AKA Ronald Grudewzcz
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
The state’s reason for delay is of no moment in questions of the running of statutory time periods, but may well be relevant in a determination as to whether defendant’s right to speedy trial has been violated.
-
State v. GRUDEWICZ
59 So. 3d 568
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
The state’s reason for delay is of no moment in questions of the running of statutory time periods, but may well be relevant in a determination as to whether defendant’s right to speedy *572 trial has been violated.
-
State v. Sorden
45 So. 3d 181
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
The state’s reason for delay is of no moment in questions of the running of statutory time periods, but may well be relevant in a determination as to whether defendant’s right to speedy trial has been violated.
- Lay v. Louisiana Parole Board 741 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
- State v. McGhee 591 So. 2d 699 La. 1992
- State ex rel. Quinlan v. Cain 562 So. 2d 454 La. 1990
- State v. Mims 552 So. 2d 664 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
- State v. Bruno 470 So. 2d 447 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
- State v. Goodwin 465 So. 2d 279 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
- State v. Savoy 429 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
-
State v. Weysham
410 So. 2d 1104
La. 1982
art. 898 (see Official Revised Comment (b))
- State v. Broussard 408 So. 2d 909 La. 1981
- State v. Hunter 391 So. 2d 844 La. 1980
- State v. Rome 392 So. 2d 407 La. 1980
-
State v. Spain
384 So. 2d 380
La. 1980
and compare the analogous provision of La.R.S.
- State Ex Rel. DeGreat v. Phelps 377 So. 2d 341 La. 1979
- State ex rel. De Great v. Phelps 373 So. 2d 530 La. 1979
-
State v. Powers
344 So. 2d 1049
La. 1977
The state's reason for delay is of no moment in questions of the running of statutory time periods, (La.
-
State v. Harris
342 So. 2d 179
La. 1977
The issue of a wherein we reaffirmed the Jones holding by stating that "a warrant to revoke probation must be executed in order for such warrant to suspend the running of the probation period in a situation where the filing of the warrant and its execution could have taken place within the probationary period."