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. Rome, 630 So. 2d 1284.

127 citing documents.

  • State v. Price 156 So. 3d 68 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    2 Cir. 8/19/98), , citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Jones 107 So. 3d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ; see also State v. Brent, 2000-0072, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. McQuirter 108 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    The Louisiana Supreme Court held in State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), , that when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute, “An interruption of prescription occurs.” The State argues that, pursuant to State v. Romar, 2007-2140 (La.7/1/08), , and La.
  • State v. Brumfield 104 So. 3d 701 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Davis 105 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    art. 582(7); State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Drummer 107 So. 3d 666 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; see also State v. Paul, 2011-1347 (La.
  • State v. Andres 100 So. 3d 953 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over citizens for indefinite periods of time.’” State v. Romar, 2007-2140, p. 8 (La.7/1/08), , citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Patin 95 So. 3d 542 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ; see also State v. Brent, 2000-0072, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. Duncan 91 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 4 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Ramirez, 2007-0652, p. 4 (La.App.
  • State v. Lommasson 81 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over citizens for indefinite | fiperiods of time.’ ” State v. Romar, 07-2140, p. 3 (La.7/1/08), (per curiam), quoting State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Green 72 So. 3d 949 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    In State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), , the Supreme Court explained the mechanics of interruption and suspension in the following manner: 14An interruption of prescription occurs when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute, in this case two years.
  • State v. Baker 71 So. 3d 545 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Wilson 68 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Franklin 62 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Bobo, 2003-2362 (La.4/30/04), ; State v. Mattox, 96-1406 and 96-2370 (La.App.
  • State of Louisiana v. Ronald G. Grudewicz AKA Ronald G. Grideiocz AKA Ronald G. Grudewcz AKA Ronald Grudewzcz La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
    State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94)
  • State v. GRUDEWICZ 59 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94)
  • State of Louisiana v. C.W. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    1/14/94), (footnote omitted).
  • State v. Peters 52 So. 3d 233 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    “An interruption of prescription occurs when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute.” State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Sinclair 55 So. 3d 47 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2010
    See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Sorden 45 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    See State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), -1287 ; State v. Walgamotte, supra
  • State of Louisiana v. Leonard Lewis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    In State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 4 (La.1/4/94), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the distinction between “interruption” and “suspension.” The Court stated: An interruption of prescription occurs when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statut
  • State v. Lewis 33 So. 3d 1046 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    In State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 4 (La.1/4/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the distinction between “interruption” and “suspension.” The Court stated: An interruption of prescription occurs when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute, in this case two years....
  • State of Louisiana v. Milton Anthony Wilks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
    prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over citizens for indefinite periods of time.” State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), see United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322, 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. George 30 So. 3d 858 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    7/1/08), (per curiam), quoting State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State ex rel. T.N. 25 So. 3d 962 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Causey, 2002-1848, p. 5 (La.App.
  • State Ex Rel. Tn 25 So. 3d 962 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Causey, 2002-1848, p. 5 (La.App.
  • State v. Davis 21 So. 3d 1038 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    the Supreme Court explained the mechanics of interruption and suspension as follows: An interruption of prescription occurs when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute, in this case two years.
  • State v. Yates 15 So. 3d 1260 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2009
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Caston, 26,415 (La.App.2d Cir. 10/26/94), , writ denied, 94-3137 (La.5/5/95), .
  • State v. Williams 5 So. 3d 904 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 2 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Tillman 997 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
    2 Cir. 8/19/98), , citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Romar 985 So. 2d 722 La. 2008
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; see United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 , 92 S.Ct.
  • State v. Smith 982 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    art. 532(7); State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Francis 977 So. 2d 187 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
    In State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), , the Supreme Court explained the mechanics of interruption and suspension as follows: An interruption of prescription occurs when the state is unable, through no fault of its own, to try a defendant within the period specified by statute, in this case two years.
  • State v. Hamilton 973 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Clay 970 So. 2d 657 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), (citations omitted).
  • State v. Brazile 960 So. 2d 333 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), (citations omitted).
  • State v. Lathan 953 So. 2d 890 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2007
    P. art. 532(7); State v. Harris, supra ; State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Odom 941 So. 2d 24 La. 2006
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94)
  • State v. Weary 931 So. 2d 297 La. 2006
  • State v. Fish 926 So. 2d 493 La. 2006
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), -89 (joint motions for continuance constitute preliminary pleas for purposes of art. 580); State v. Anderson, 38,718, p. 19 (La.App.
  • State v. Thomas 928 So. 2d 649 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    In State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court also discussed the purpose of these time limits, as follows: The purpose of the statute's mandating dismissal, when legislative time limits have elapsed, is to enforce the accused's right to a speedy trial and to prevent the oppression caused by suspending criminal prosecutions over
  • State v. Goins 920 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
    art. 581; State v. Morris, 99-3235 (La.2/18/00), , citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Breaux 920 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Carcamo, 03-589 (La.App.
  • State v. Jackson 916 So. 2d 1274 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.01/14/94), ; State v. Caston, 26,415 (La.App.2d Cir.10/26/94), , writ denied, 94-3137 (La.05/05/95), .
  • State v. Anderson 889 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Quinones 864 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    In State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 4 (La.1/4/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the distinction between "interruption" and "suspension."
  • State v. Smith 864 So. 2d 811 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    art. 532(7); State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Carcamo 860 So. 2d 220 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.01/14/94), .
  • State v. Bell 854 So. 2d 429 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), ; see also State v. Brent, XXXX-XXXX, p. 6 (La.App.
  • State v. Causey 844 So. 2d 1076 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94), .