Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State in Interest of JG, 641 So. 2d 633.

27 citing documents.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.J. J. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana in the Interest of C.N. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State ex rel. H.N. 171 So. 3d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State in the Intrest of T. H. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
5 Cir. 7/26/94), the court applied the harmless error analysis when the trial court failed 11 to advise the juvenile of his rights under art. 855.
State ex rel. T.H. 140 So. 3d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
5 Cir. 7/26/94) , , the court applied the harmless error analysis when the trial court failed [ iato advise the juvenile of his rights under art. 855.
State in the Interest of L. D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State in the Intrest C. V. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State ex rel. C.V. 134 So. 3d 211 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State in the Interest of S. D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State in the Interest of N. F. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State ex rel. N.F. 124 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Christopher K. Mayeux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Mayeux 128 So. 3d 998 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State in the Interest of D. D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State ex rel. D.D. 86 So. 3d 171 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State Ex Rel. Sj 66 So. 3d 1142 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2011
State ex rel. S.J. 66 So. 3d 1142 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State in the Interest of S.C. J. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State Ex Rel. Scj 28 So. 3d 1206 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State ex rel. S.C.J. 28 So. 3d 1206 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Farhood 844 So. 2d 217 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State ex rel. K.G. 778 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
5th Cir.07/26/94), , the court held that it was an error patent for the record to fail to reflect that the juvenile was advised of his rights when he appeared to answer the allegations of the delinquency petitions; however, the error was found harmless as the juvenile was represented by counsel and pled not guilty to the charges against
State Ex Rel. Kg 778 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
5th Cir.07/26/94), , the court held that it was an error patent for the record to fail to reflect that the juvenile was advised of his rights when he appeared to answer the allegations of the delinquency petitions; however, the error was found harmless as the juvenile was represented by counsel and pled not guilty to the charges against
State v. James 761 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
5 Cir. 7/26/94) ; ; (La.
State v. In the Interest of J.M. 687 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
State ex rel. D.S. 673 So. 2d 1123 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
5th Cir. 7/26/94), ; State in Interest of BJ., (La.App.
State in Interest of AH 670 So. 2d 361 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996