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. Brooks 838 So. 2d 778 La. 2003
    State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94)
  • State v. Ward 830 So. 2d 1135 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
    579 and 580; State v. Morris, 99-3235 (La.02/18/00), ; State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.01/14/94), ; State v. Pratt, supra .
  • State v. Woodard 799 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    Art. 579(A)(2); State v. Rome, [93-1221 (La.1/14/94) ].
  • State v. Meredith 796 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Barley, 29,482 (La.App.2d Cir.6/18/97), .
  • State v. Baudier 789 So. 2d 696 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    art. 578, the State “bears a heavy burden to demonstrate either an interruption or a suspension of the time limit such that prescription will not have tolled.” State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Oliver 786 So. 2d 317 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.01/14/94), .
  • State v. Jones 780 So. 2d 1234 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
    art. 532(7); State v. Morris, 99-3235 (La.2/18/00), , citing State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Brent 775 So. 2d 565 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    As noted in State v. Rome, 93-1221 p.4 (La.1/14/94), , 1287: "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. Marshall 808 So. 2d 376 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Blazio 756 So. 2d 606 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    State v. Rome, 93-1221, p. 3 (La.1/14/94), (citations omitted).
  • State v. Morris 755 So. 2d 205 La. 2000
    State v. Joseph, 93-2734, p. 1 (La.6/3/94)
  • State v. Sartain 746 So. 2d 837 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
    As noted in State v. Rome, 93-1221 p. 4 (La.1/14/94), , 1287: "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. Pratt 748 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Craig 747 So. 2d 604 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.01/14/94), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Patterson 737 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    art. 579 further provides that the “periods of limitation established by Article 578 shall commence to run anew from the date the cause of interruption no longer exists.” As noted in State v. Rome, 93-1221 p. 4 (La.1/14/94), , 1287: “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.” When a defendant seeks to quash the charges against him due to a violation of the art. 578 time limitation, the
  • State v. Dorignac 729 So. 2d 175 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    Furthermore, under State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), , the State bears a heavy burden to demonstrate either an interruption or a suspension of the time limit when a defendant brings an apparently meritorious motion to quash based on prescription.
  • State v. McCord 727 So. 2d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    1/14/94), , 1287: “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.” When a defendant seeks to quash the charges against him due to a violation of the La.C.Cr.P.
  • State v. McDonald 718 So. 2d 542 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1998
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Barley, 29,482 (La.App.2d Cir.6/18/97), .
  • State v. Mack 716 So. 2d 137 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; State v. Barley, 29,482 (La.App.2d Cir. 6/18/97), .
  • State v. Mattox 704 So. 2d 380 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Duncan 702 So. 2d 328 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), ; (La.App.
  • State v. Forrest 701 So. 2d 706 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
  • State v. Barley 698 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
    State v. Rome, 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), .
  • State v. Harris 694 So. 2d 626 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
  • State v. Stelly 645 So. 2d 804 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
    1/14/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court stated that when a defendant brings a motion to quash based on prescription, the State bears a heavy burden to demonstrate either an interruption or suspension of the time limit so that prescription will not have run.
  • State v. Caston 645 So. 2d 1202 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • State v. Joseph 637 So. 2d 1032 La. 1994