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. DeLaRose, 391 So. 2d 842.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Richardson 222 So. 3d 73 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
    15:85 and strictly complied with the terms of the statutory provisions regulating bond forfeiture, (La.
  • State v. Williams 977 So. 2d 154 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    where the Louisiana Supreme Court interpreted a former version of R.S.
  • State v. Weaver 951 So. 2d 421 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
    State v. Rotramel, 95-1074 (La.App.
  • State v. McLaurin 927 So. 2d 570 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2006
    State v. Rotramel, 95-1074 (La.App.
  • State v. Murphy 917 So. 2d 769 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    In support of their claim that the prosecution was required to provide notice within 60 days of the first failure to appear
  • State v. Wilson 917 So. 2d 719 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Gibson 907 So. 2d 82 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2005
    the court in Blair recognized that, with regard to intent, the purpose of LSA-R.S.
  • State v. Turner 893 So. 2d 900 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • State of Louisiana v. Dominique Turner La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
  • Bankers Ins. Co. v. State 843 So. 2d 641 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2003
    State v. Bailey, supra .
  • State v. Rice 827 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
  • State v. Kerrison 701 So. 2d 1347 La. 1997
    State v. Batiste, 94-1237 (La.App.
  • State v. Rotramel 670 So. 2d 378 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • State v. Roy 666 So. 2d 1124 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Burnes 663 So. 2d 246 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Davis 663 So. 2d 386 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Breaux 657 So. 2d 371 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Esthay 657 So. 2d 366 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • State v. Deshotel 657 So. 2d 201 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
    State v.-Landfair, (La.App.
  • State v. Batiste 653 So. 2d 127 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • State v. Blair 644 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    the statute’s purpose is to shield the surety from prejudice brought about by the delay in learning of the defendant’s failure to appear.
  • State v. Stills 642 So. 2d 316 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    the delay in the present case of almost nine months between commencement of the proceedings and entry of the July 18 judgment resulted in the discharge of the surety.
  • State v. Landfair 626 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
  • State ex rel. Lombard 613 So. 2d 1166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
    1008 , the hearing for which the appearance bond was posted was actually held despite the absence of the bonded party; the court reversed the judgment of forfeiture because of procedural errors committed by the State.
  • State v. Hartley 614 So. 2d 211 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Watson 596 So. 2d 1393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
  • State v. Brown 577 So. 2d 784 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Likens 577 So. 2d 285 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Owens 561 So. 2d 842 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
    [1] Also, a delay of 14 months between the prosecution's oral motion for bond forfeiture and the court's entry of the judgment of bond forfeiture was said to defeat the statutory scheme of prompt notice.
  • ACCREDITED SUR. AND CAS. CO. v. McElveen 561 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Dickerson 534 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
  • State v. Anthony 525 So. 2d 247 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
    in arguing that the state could not set a second arraignment date without first arresting the defendant on the bench warrant.
  • State v. Dunlevie 516 So. 2d 1253 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
    State v. Salgologo, supra; (La.
  • State v. Salgologo 491 So. 2d 361 La. 1986
  • Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Boudreaux 476 So. 2d 469 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
    Allied contends this failure requires that the judgments be annulled because the State did not strictly comply with the forfeiture statute, (La.
  • State v. Bullock 412 So. 2d 1059 La. 1982
  • State v. Pickett 408 So. 2d 1 La. 1981
    MARCUS, J. dissents from the order and would grant to reconsider State v. DeLaRose
  • State v. Hathaway 403 So. 2d 737 La. 1981
    Recently, that in order to obtain a judgment of bond forfeiture against a surety, the state must comply strictly with the terms of the statute regulating bond forfeitures.