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 Ex Rel. Nicholas v. State, 520 So. 2d 377.

26 citing documents.

  • Parish of Jefferson Versus Gail Fayard & Cheryl Kirsch La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2025
  • State of Louisiana Versus Sherneskie Bell La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
  • State of Louisiana v. Jimmy O'Neal Lewis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
  • State of Louisiana v. Troherro Keith Batiste La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
  • State v. Batiste 246 So. 3d 52 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    380 (La.1988) ; , 1059-1060 (La.1981).
  • State v. Halley 212 So. 3d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
  • State of Louisiana v. M S La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • Mendoza v. Grey Wolf Drilling Co. 77 So. 3d 18 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
    Fisher v. Rollins, 231 La.
  • State v. Lawrence 5 So. 3d 896 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
  • State v. Matthews 855 So. 2d 740 La. 2003
    (When the lower court has inadvertently set aside the wrong count in a dual prosecution for the forgery of a single instrument to implement Smith , an appellate court may nevertheless consider the evidence on that count "in order to sustain the judgment of forgery conviction against total defeat under Ja
  • State v. Robinson 817 So. 2d 1131 La. 2002
  • State v. Jackson 800 So. 2d 854 La. 2001
    (“One of the main lines of attack upon the credibility of a witness is an attack by showing a | ^defect of capacity in the witness to observe, remember or recount the matters testified about.”).
  • State v. Rochon 733 So. 2d 624 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
  • State v. Hawkins 688 So. 2d 473 La. 1997
  • Busby v. St. Paul Ins. Co. 673 So. 2d 320 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    art. 607(C); [6] State ex rel *326 (La.
  • State v. Durham 673 So. 2d 1103 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
  • State v. Hawkins 667 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Ellis 657 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
  • State v. Dunn 651 So. 2d 1378 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1995
    the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed a defendant's right to confront and cross-examine his accusers, stating as follows: Confrontation means more than being allowed to confront the witnesses.
  • State v. Byes 648 So. 2d 1073 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1994
  • State v. Sherman 630 So. 2d 321 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
  • Succession of Russell 590 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1991
  • State v. Walters 582 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    the Supreme Court stated: The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."
  • State v. Marler 560 So. 2d 537 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
    the Louisiana Supreme Court set forth the purpose of cross-examination, as follows: The three main functions of cross-examination are: (1) to shed light on the credibility of the direct testimony; (2) to bring out additional facts related to those elicited on direct; and (3) to bring out additional fac
  • State v. Harrison 560 So. 2d 450 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
  • State v. Muntz 534 So. 2d 1317 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988