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. Sims, 426 So. 2d 148.

96 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. Alexis Michelle Zebley La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana v. Travis Boys La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
    Moreover, as the State correctly notes, “[i]t is well settled that a new basis for an objection cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.” (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Brandon Bell-Brayboy La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2020
    United States v. Sharpe, supra; (La.
  • State of Louisiana v. Anthony Eugene III La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2019
  • State of Louisiana Versus Roger Barber La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2019
  • State of Louisiana v. Arijoray Lavon Copeland La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2019
  • State v. Loicana 254 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • State v. Ross 195 So. 3d 1210 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    State v. Carter, 10-0614, pp. 27-28 (La.1/24/12), ().
  • State v. Winstead 193 So. 3d 565 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    5 Cir.1988) (court found it unlikely that someone else was driving the car or that the defendant became intoxicated after driving onto the median)
  • State v. Wall 209 So. 3d 962 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    5 Cir. 6/29/10) , , (wherein the reviewing courts affirmed defendants’ convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated under similar facts where the defendants were found slumped over their vehicles’ steering wheels with the engines running.)) However, in order to operate a motor vehicle, defendant must have exercise
  • State v. Pham 119 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
  • State v. Bennett 87 So. 3d 184 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    the Louisiana Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to support a conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated.
  • State v. Carter 84 So. 3d 499 La. 2012
  • State v. Escoto 41 So. 3d 1160 La. 2010
    LaRue, 368 So.2d at 1051
  • State v. White 44 So. 3d 750 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    the deputy observed defendant’s vehicle parked on the shoulder of a public highway during the early morning hours.
  • State v. Favors 28 So. 3d 433 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State ex rel. J.S. 6 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
  • State v. Holmes 5 So. 3d 42 La. 2008
    Accordingly, subject to Rule 28 review, given this Court's settled rule that a new basis for an objection may not be urged for the first time on appeal, we find the defendant waived any claim based on admission of this evidence.
  • State v. Defrene 980 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
  • State v. Dufrene 980 So. 2d 31 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • State v. Butler 960 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    State v. Finch, 31,888 (La.App.2d Cir.5/5/99), .
  • State v. Blank 955 So. 2d 90 La. 2007
    art. 841; (new basis for an objection may not be urged for the first time on appeal); (same); (same).
  • State v. Mulvihill 860 So. 2d 266 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    Furthermore, a case factually similar to the instant case, a deputy spotted a vehicle on the shoulder of a highway with its headlights engaged and engine running.
  • State v. Allen 793 So. 2d 426 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2001
  • State v. Robinson 743 So. 2d 814 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
  • State v. Finch 733 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Anderson 732 So. 2d 605 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); (La.
  • State v. Franks 730 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
  • State v. Cooks 720 So. 2d 637 La. 1998
    art. 841; State v. Taylor, supra; (a new basis for an objection may not be urged for the first time on appeal).
  • State v. Duran 693 So. 2d 2 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1997
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); also, *4
  • State v. Riche 649 So. 2d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
  • State v. Walker 637 So. 2d 583 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Butler 631 So. 2d 22 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Edwards 630 So. 2d 302 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
    223 , 13 L.Ed.2d 142 (1964); See also LSA-C.Cr.P.
  • State v. Tucker 626 So. 2d 707 La. 1993
    See, (Blanche, J., writing for the majority including Dixon, C.J., Marcus, J., Dennis, J., Watson, J., and Lemmon, J., and to which Calogero, J., concurred) ("A person is `seized' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and La.
  • State v. Girouard 615 So. 2d 29 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
  • State v. Morris 614 So. 2d 180 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Daniels 614 So. 2d 97 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
  • State v. Quatrevingt 617 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
  • State v. Tucker 591 So. 2d 1208 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
    For a discussion of the significant factors considered by Louisiana courts in determining whether a true inventory search has occurred, and cases cited therein.
  • State v. Short 588 So. 2d 151 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
  • State v. Laviolette 576 So. 2d 1000 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Blake 575 So. 2d 906 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Nixon 572 So. 2d 1172 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Brass 563 So. 2d 1281 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
  • State v. Allison 554 So. 2d 262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Young 552 So. 2d 669 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
  • State v. Crocker 551 So. 2d 707 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
  • State v. Jackson 548 So. 2d 945 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
    Moreover, even if we were to consider this as an inventory search, none of the factors established jur-isprudentially to determine if a
  • State v. Bolton 548 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1989
    1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)