Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Sandifer, 679 So. 2d 1324.

79 citing documents.

State v. Gibson 867 So. 2d 793 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
The Blockburger or “ ‘additional fact’ test requires that, when conduct constitutes a violation of two or more distinct statutory provisions, the provisions must be scrutinized to confirm that each demands proof of an additional fact.” State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, pp. 4-5, .
State v. Lee 864 So. 2d 654 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
[10] State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Williams 842 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, pp. 8-9 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Gay 830 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2002
2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977); State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.09/05/96), ; State v. Marshall, 94-0461 (La.09/05/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Gay 830 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977); State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.09/05/96), ; State v. Marshall, 94-0461 (La.09/05/95), ; (La.App.
State v. Hines 829 So. 2d 530 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Williams, 98-1006 (La.App.
State v. Segura 829 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Dabney 809 So. 2d 1196 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, p. 10 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Brisban 809 So. 2d 923 La. 2002
State v. Blanchard, 99-3439 (La.1/18/01), ; State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Temple 806 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Williams, 98-1006 (La.App.
State v. Manson 791 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2001
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, p. 10 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Hair 784 So. 2d 1269 La. 2001
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, p. 10 (La.9/5/96), -32 ( ).
Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp. 785 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
See State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96)
State in the Interest of RT 781 So. 2d 1239 La. 2001
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), .
State Ex Rel. Rt 781 So. 2d 1239 La. 2001
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Blanchard 776 So. 2d 1165 La. 2001
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Williams, 98-1006 (La.App.
State v. Muralles 802 So. 2d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, pp. 4-6 (La.9/5/99), -1330 , citing United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696-697 , 113 S.Ct.
State v. Quest 772 So. 2d 772 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Williams, 98-1006 (La.App.
State v. Short 769 So. 2d 823 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/05/96), .
State v. Thomas 764 So. 2d 1104 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
4 Cir. 3/16/95) ; , writ denied, 95-0943 (La.5/19/95); ; and State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96); .
State v. Harris 761 So. 2d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
See State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Villarreal 759 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2000
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226, p. 10 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Blanchard 749 So. 2d 19 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Williams, 98-1006 (La.
Cooper v. Orleans Parish School Board 742 So. 2d 55 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
2908 , 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973); State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96); ; State v. Norfleet, 96-2122, p. 9 (La.App.
State v. Williams 735 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
The Supreme Court, in State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), , considered the constitutional "vagueness" argument relative to R.S.
State v. Taylor 733 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.1996), .
State v. Bryant 729 So. 2d 600 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
See State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), ; State v. Woods, 94-2650 (La.App.
State v. Norfleet 721 So. 2d 506 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Broadrick v. Oklahoma ; State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), .
State v. Muschkat 706 So. 2d 429 La. 1998
State v. Sandifer, 95-2226 (La.9/5/96), (citing Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 610 , 93 S.Ct.