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. Skelton, 340 So. 2d 256.

28 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Calvin King La. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    (“[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 nothi
  • State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • 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 i
  • 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 i
  • State v. Office 967 So. 2d 1185 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
  • 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); State
  • 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); (
  • 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); State v. Bartley, 329 So.
  • 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 i
  • 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); S
  • 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 i
  • 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)
  • 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 i
  • 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 i
  • State v. Edwards 412 So. 2d 1029 La. 1982
  • State v. Mattheson 407 So. 2d 1150 La. 1981
  • State v. Hillard 398 So. 2d 1057 La. 1981
  • State v. Murray 375 So. 2d 80 La. 1979
    art. 800; State v. Labostrie, supra ; State v. George, supra
  • State v. Labostrie 358 So. 2d 1243 La. 1978
    art. 800; State v. George, supra
  • State v. Sheppard 350 So. 2d 615 La. 1977
  • State v. Anthony 347 So. 2d 483 La. 1977
    State v. Williams, La., (1977); State v. Skelton, La., (1976); State v. Russell, La., (1976).
  • State v. Hodges 349 So. 2d 250 La. 1977
    State v. Skelton, La., (1976); State v. Ledet, La., (1976); State v. Collins, La., (1975).
  • State v. George 346 So. 2d 694 La. 1977
    art. 800; State v. Michel, 225 La.
  • State v. Sepulvado 342 So. 2d 630 La. 1977
    State v. Jenkins, La., (1976); State v. Davenport, La., (1976); State v. Skelton, La., (1976).
  • State v. Jamerson 341 So. 2d 1118 La. 1977
  • State v. Tyler 342 So. 2d 574 La. 1977