Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sherer, 354 So. 2d 1038.

30 citing documents.

State Of Louisiana v. Denard Larrelle Ridgley La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
State v. Caccioppo 61 So. 3d 61 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the circumstances indicating the officer’s intent to effect an extended restraint on liberty of an accused, rather than the precise timing of an officer’s statement: “You are under arrest” are determinative of when an “arrest” is actually made within the meaning of R.S.
State v. Juengain 41 So. 3d 499 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Dilosa 849 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
State v. Saltzman 843 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
see Seals v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C.
State v. Thompson 806 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Diaz 800 So. 2d 1090 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
This court has considered this issue and determined that “it is the circumstances indicating intent to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of the accused, rather than the precise timing of an officer’s statements: ‘You are under arrest,’ that are determinative of when an arrest is actually made.” ().
State v. Broussard 769 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Court stated: This court has considered this issue and determined that “it is the circumstances indicating the intent to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of the accused, rather than the precise timing of an officer’s statements: ‘You are under arrest,’ that are determinative of when an arrest is actually made.” (); [sic]
State v. Smith 761 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
ourt stated: This court has considered this issue and determined that “it is the circumstances indicating the intent to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of the accused, rather than the precise timing' of an officer’s statements: ‘You are under arrest,’ that are determinative of when an arrest is actually made.” (); [sic]
State v. Creecy 742 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Smiley 729 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
State v. Bush 733 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Amos 714 So. 2d 775 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
State v. Fisher 692 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
State v. Allen 682 So. 2d 713 La. 1996
Anderson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 675 So. 2d 1184 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
State v. Collins 588 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Williams 567 So. 2d 755 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
See also State v. Tomasetti, supra
State v. Hebert 559 So. 2d 821 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
Harrison v. Phillips 539 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
State v. Whittaker 463 So. 2d 1270 La. 1985
State v. Brown 445 So. 2d 456 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1984
this court observed that "it is the circumstances indicating intent to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of the accused, rather than the precise timing of an officer's statements: `You are under arrest,' that are determinative of when an arrest is actually made."
State v. Edwards 419 So. 2d 881 La. 1982
this court observed that: "...
State v. Sherer 411 So. 2d 1050 La. 1982
His convictions were affirmed by this court, (La.
State v. Menne 380 So. 2d 14 La. 1980
State v. Rawls 376 So. 2d 117 La. 1979
State v. Giovanni 375 So. 2d 1360 La. 1979
this Court observed that "it is the circumstances indicating intent to effect an extended restraint on the liberty of an accused, rather than the precise timing of an officer's statements: `You are under arrest,' that are determinative of when an arrest is actually made."
State v. Mendoza 376 So. 2d 139 La. 1979
State v. Gedric 374 So. 2d 1192 La. 1979
State v. Wilkens 364 So. 2d 934 La. 1978