DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Ardoin, 340 So. 2d 1362.

26 citing documents.

  • Jerry L. Mallet and Gail A. Mallet v. Kathy Mallet Montgomery La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
  • State v. Wille 595 So. 2d 1149 La. 1992
  • State v. Revere 572 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Lopez 562 So. 2d 1064 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Leonard 543 So. 2d 975 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Wilson 520 So. 2d 935 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State in Interest of RC 514 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
    An appellate court will look to the facts of the individual case to determine whether the violation resulted in prejudice, and whether the exposure was sufficient to affect the witness's testimony or to undermine the opposing party's ability to cross-examine.
  • State v. White 508 So. 2d 982 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • State v. White 446 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
  • State v. Huntley 438 So. 2d 1188 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    In Jones, supra at 531, 532 , the Court commented: "Although we have consistently held that the action to be taken in the face of a violation of a sequestration order rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, the discretion in this regard is not unlimited.
  • State v. Anderson 440 So. 2d 205 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Buchanan 439 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Allen 431 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1983
    On review, this court will look to the facts of the individual case to determine whether the violation resulted in prejudice to the defendant, and will inquire whether the exposure was sufficient to affect the witness' testimony or to undermine the opposing party's ability to cross-examine.
  • State v. Stewart 387 So. 2d 1103 La. 1980
  • State v. Lewis 367 So. 2d 1155 La. 1979
    On review, this court will look to the facts of the individual case to determine whether the violation resulted in prejudice to the defendant, and will inquire whether the exposure was sufficient to affect the witness' testimony or to undermine the opposing *1159 party's ability to cross-examine.
  • State v. Hysell 364 So. 2d 1300 La. 1978
  • State v. Washington 363 So. 2d 509 La. 1978
  • State v. Washington 363 So. 2d 509 La. 1978
  • State v. Pool 361 So. 2d 1202 La. 1978
  • State v. Wilson 360 So. 2d 166 La. 1978
    State v. Raymond, 258 La.
  • State v. Jones 354 So. 2d 530 La. 1978
    Although we have consistently held that the action to be taken in the face of a violation of a sequestration order rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge, the discretion in this regard is not unlimited.
  • State v. Mullins 353 So. 2d 243 La. 1977
    State v. Raymond, 258 La.
  • Hopkins v. Department of Highways 350 So. 2d 1271 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • State v. Muller 351 So. 2d 143 La. 1977
    The state acknowledges this standard, support the view that the court below erred.
  • State v. Passman 345 So. 2d 874 La. 1977
  • State v. Weeks 345 So. 2d 26 La. 1977
    [2] State v. Rachal, 212 La.