Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Tanner, 425 So. 2d 760.

48 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Merlin P. Dejean La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
5 App. 4 Cir. 12/18/13), ( (La.
State Of Louisiana v. David Brown La. 2022
State of Louisiana v. Joshua J. Ward La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2021
State v. Nixon 254 So. 3d 1228 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2018
at 1149-50 ; see also , State v. Tanner , , 763 (La.
State v. Patterson 244 So. 3d 733 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
at 1149-50 ; see also , State v. Tanner , , 763 (La.
State v. Foster 224 So. 3d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
State of Louisiana v. Woodrow Karey, Jr., A/K/A Woodrow Karey, II La. 2017
State v. Young 215 So. 3d 906 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2017
State v. Cotton 194 So. 3d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State of Louisiana v. Woodrow Karey, Jr. AKA Woodrow Karey, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
13 In reaching its ruling
State v. Karey 180 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
114In reaching its ruling
State v. Young 174 So. 3d 719 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State of Louisiana v. Stephan M. Bergeron La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
(footnote omitted) (alteration in original).
State v. Bergeron 150 So. 3d 523 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Marcelin 131 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
State v. Franklin 126 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
-138 (La.1979); State v. Moten, 99-552, p. 2 (La.App.
State v. Johnson 28 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
the Louisiana Supreme Court granted a motion to quash, not based on any grounds enumerated in Arts.
State ex rel. D.S. 23 So. 3d 388 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
The Louisiana Supreme Court, has stated that “[t]he district attor ney determines whom, when and how he shall prosecute in his district,” citing La.
State Ex Rel. Morgan v. State 3 So. 3d 456 La. 2009
State v. Hingle, 242 La.
State v. Mitchell 7 So. 3d 744 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Roberts 973 So. 2d 791 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2007
State v. Keener 939 So. 2d 510 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State Ex Rel. Turner v. State 906 So. 2d 399 La. 2005
State v. Hingle, 242 La.
State v. Adams 884 So. 2d 694 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State of Louisiana v. Corey Marquee Adams, Whitney Batiste, and Horatio Adams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
State v. Foster 845 So. 2d 393 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
the court held that even though violation of an immunity agreement is not specifically listed in Article 532, use of a motion to quash as a remedy is not precluded.
State ex rel. Payne v. State 828 So. 2d 1113 La. 2002
State v. Hingle, 242 La.
State v. Cola 807 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
State v. Meredith 796 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
which involved almost identical factual and legal issues.
State v. Poland 782 So. 2d 556 La. 2001
State v. Givens 776 So. 2d 443 La. 2001
State v. Moten 748 So. 2d 1210 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Poland 750 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
State v. Romano 722 So. 2d 1155 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
the defendant was charged by bill of information in connection with a death arising from an automobile accident.
State v. Delcambre 710 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
for the proposition that the issue was properly raised by a motion to quash.
State v. Louis 645 So. 2d 1144 La. 1994
State v. Louis 634 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
the Supreme Court addressed the principle of detrimental reliance in terms of what evidence a defendant offers the State during the course of his cooperation.
State v. Cinel 619 So. 2d 770 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1993
State v. Haislip 606 So. 2d 1314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
the court held that when the State makes a good faith bargain with a defendant and in reliance on that bargain, the defendant relinquishes a fundamental right such as the right against self-incrimination, the State cannot repudiate the bargain.
State v. McFarland 578 So. 2d 1014 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
State v. Lehrmann 532 So. 2d 802 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
State v. Hingle, 242 La.
State v. Graham 513 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1987
State v. Bentley 499 So. 2d 581 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
State v. Holmes 475 So. 2d 1057 La. 1985
State v. Bowie 458 So. 2d 1033 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
State v. Cooper 449 So. 2d 1376 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
State v. Howard 448 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
said that "[t]he district attorney determines whom, when and how he shall prosecute in his district."
State v. Reed 441 So. 2d 1257 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983