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. Craig, 637 So. 2d 437.

25 citing documents.

  • State v. High 184 So. 3d 7 La. 2015
    State v. Citizen, 04-1841 (La.4/1/05), ; State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94)
  • State v. Roe 151 So. 3d 838 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    In Touchet , the Court cited State v. Craig, 93-2515, c/w State v. Harris, 93-2589 (La.5/23/94), , where it upheld a trial court ruling ordering payment for the services of an investigator, a psychologist, and a mitigation expert; where it ordered the trial court to grant the defendant’s request for experts in fingerprint analysis and serology; and State v. Madison, 34
  • State v. Kyle 117 So. 3d 498 La. 2013
    State v. Citizen, 04-1841 (La.4/1/05), ; State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94)
  • Vizzi v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government 93 So. 3d 1260 La. 2012
    See e.g., State v. Citizen, 04-1841 (La.4/1/05), (funding for indigent defense); Prator v. Caddo Parish, 04-0794 (La.12/1/04), (dispute between parish and sheriff over funding obligations at parish correctional center); State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94), (funding for indigent defendants’ expert witnesses and investigative services in capital cases); (funding for indigent defense); (funding for indigent defendant’s witnesses); State v. Mejia, 250 La.
  • State v. Wells 64 So. 3d 303 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
    ” See State v. Craig, 93-2515, p. 5 (La.5/23/94), (superceded by statute on other grounds), State v. Citizen, 2004-1841 (La.4/1/05), .
  • State v. Reeves 11 So. 3d 1031 La. 2009
    Briefly, in State v. Craig, 1993-2515 (La.5/23/94), , this court held that the extant version of La.
  • City of New Orleans v. ASSESSORS'RETIREMENT AND RELIEF FUND 986 So. 2d 1 La. 2008
    Jordan v. Louisiana Gaming Control Board, 98-1122, 98-1133, 98-1134, p. 9 (La.5/15/98), -81 ; State v. Craig, 93-2515, 93-2654, 93-2589, p. 7 (La.5/23/94), ; State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 188 La.
  • State v. Frank 957 So. 2d 724 La. 2007
    State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94), .
  • State v. Citizen 898 So. 2d 325 La. 2005
    In a related vein, in State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94), , which, like the instant case involved pre-trial applications filed by defendants facing capital murder charges, this Court held that the extant version of La.
  • State v. Lee 879 So. 2d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
    See also State v. Craig, 1993-2515 (La.5/23/94), .
  • Bd. of Trust. of State Empl. v. St. Landry 844 So. 2d 90 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
    Also pertinent is the general law on repeal by implication as set forth in State v. Craig, 1993-2515 (La.5/23/94), , 443: Repeals by implication require a determination of whether there is some indication of a legislative "intention to repeal" the statutes in question.
  • Hoag v. State Ex Rel. Kennedy 836 So. 2d 207 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
    The general law on repeal by implication is set forth in State v. Craig, 93-2515, p. 7 (La.5/23/94), , as follows: Repeals by implication require a determination of whether there is some indication of a legislative "intention to repeal" the statutes in question.
  • State v. Frank 803 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
    In State v. Craig, 93-2515, 93-2654, 93-2589, p. 13 (La.5/23/94), -47 , the court upheld a trial court decision ordering payment for the services of an investigator, a psychologist, and a mitigation expert, finding that those services were necessary to provide the indigent defendant with an adequate opportunity to present his defense.
  • Bebop's Ice House, Inc. v. City of Sulphur 774 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
    State v. Craig, 93-2515, 93-2654, 93-2589, p. 7 (La.5/23/94); .
  • State v. Hall 775 So. 2d 52 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
    See State v. Craig, 93-2515, p. 5 (La.5/23/94), .
  • State v. Matthews 756 So. 2d 440 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    See State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94), .
  • State v. Jeff 761 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    See State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94), .
  • State v. Brumfield 737 So. 2d 660 La. 1998
    Finally, "despite the requirement of approval by both the district court and the district attorney, `neither agency of government may arbitrarily refuse to approve a proper expenditure from [the Criminal Court Fund].'" State v. Craig, 93-2525, p. 6 (La.5/23/94); (quoting State v. Henderson, So.2d (La.
  • State v. August 719 So. 2d 536 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
  • Dept. of State Civ. Serv. v. Housing Auth. of East Baton Rouge 673 So. 2d 726 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
    See State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.1994); .
  • State v. Crawford 672 So. 2d 197 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    See also State v. Craig, 93-2515 (La.5/23/94); .
  • State v. Bourque 653 So. 2d 548 La. 1995
    5/23/94); “all attorneys representing indigents are ‘appointed’ by the court, whether employed or affiliated with [an indigent defender program] or not.” However, given the IDB’s duties as administrator of the district’s indigent defense fund, the IDB has a right to be present at an indigency determination invol
  • State v. Touchet 642 So. 2d 1213 La. 1994
  • State v. Jackson 642 So. 2d 180 La. 1994
  • State v. Williams 639 So. 2d 1175 La. 1994