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. Jones, 395 So. 2d 751.

43 citing documents.

  • Hooper v. Hero Lands Co. 128 So. 3d 691 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    Where the continuance motion is based on inadequate time for counsel to prepare a defense, this specific prejudice requirement has been disregarded only when the preparation time was “so minimal as to call into question the basic fairness of the proceeding.” (La.
  • State ex rel. O.W. 160 So. 3d 174 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
  • State ex rel. J.T. 94 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Russell Gene Ware, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    When a motion to continue is based upon a claim of inadequate time to prepare a defense, the specific prejudice requirement has been disregarded only when the time has been “so minimal as to call into question the basic fairness of the proceeding.”
  • State v. Ware 80 So. 3d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    When a motion to continue is based upon a claim of inadequate time to prepare a defense, the specific prejudice requirement has been disregarded only when the time has been “so minimal as to call into question the basic fairness of the proceeding.”
  • State v. Victor 82 So. 3d 301 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
  • State of Louisiana v. Darwin Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Gauthier 916 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • State v. Pitre 901 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
  • State v. Delandro 818 So. 2d 1011 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
  • State v. Porter 806 So. 2d 64 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    When a motion to continue is based upon a claim of inadequate time to prepare a defense, the specific prejudice requirement has been disregarded only when the time has been “so minimal as to call into question the basic fairness of the proceeding.”
  • State v. Porche 780 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    When a motion to continue is based upon a claim of inadequate time to prepare a defense, the specific prejudice requirement has been disregarded only when the time has been “so minimal as to call into question the basic fairness of the proceeding.”
  • State v. Commodore 774 So. 2d 318 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. Sam 761 So. 2d 72 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
  • State v. East 745 So. 2d 812 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    When a motion to continue is based upon a claim of inadequate time to prepare a defense, the specific prejudice requirement has been disregarded only when the time has been “so minimal as to call into question the basic fairness of the proceeding.”
  • State v. Ste. Marie 741 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Moreover, the “specific prejudice requirement will be disregarded only where the time allowed defense counsel to prepare is so minimal that the ‘fairness’ of the proceeding is questionable.” Williams, 605 So.2d at 688
  • State v. Snyder 750 So. 2d 832 La. 1999
  • State v. Owens 719 So. 2d 610 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    *617 2d Cir.1992), , writ denied
  • State v. Cockerham 671 So. 2d 967 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Malinda 663 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Cannon 658 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1995
    State v. Ashley, supra .
  • State v. Smith 632 So. 2d 887 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
    State v. Ashley, supra .
  • State v. Williams 605 So. 2d 686 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
    State v. Ashley, supra .
  • State v. Lewis 576 So. 2d 1106 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Savage 575 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Ashley 569 So. 2d 276 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Sonnier 558 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Ray 547 So. 2d 1350 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Hallal 544 So. 2d 1222 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Martin 543 So. 2d 1020 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    and cases cited therein.
  • State v. Ray 521 So. 2d 582 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
  • State v. Roy 496 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Olsen 496 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
  • State v. Sampson 480 So. 2d 952 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1985
  • State v. Benoit 477 So. 2d 849 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
  • State v. Johnson 463 So. 2d 620 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Davis 451 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
  • State v. Parrish 434 So. 2d 475 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Guidry 432 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • State v. Terracina 430 So. 2d 64 La. 1983
  • State v. Sloan 426 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
  • State v. Stephenson 412 So. 2d 553 La. 1982
  • State v. Long 408 So. 2d 1221 La. 1982