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. Laugand, 759 So. 2d 34.

13 citing documents.

  • State Of Louisiana v. Harold Butler La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
    3/ 17/ 00), ( per curiam).
  • State v. Expose 141 So. 3d 885 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Similarly, the defendant’s reliance on State v. Laugand, 99-1124, 99-1327 (La.3/17/00), , is misplaced.
  • State of Louisiana v. Thomas Kirk Gaton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    3/17/00), State v. Addison, 94-2745 (La.
  • State ex rel. J.T. 94 So. 3d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    cites State v. Addison, 94-2745 (La.6/23/95), , and State v. Laugand, 99-1124, 99-1327 (La.3/17/00), .
  • State v. Negron 25 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    3/17/00), (per curiam) stated: A judge may not respond to an unexpected disruption of the court's trial schedule, caused by a conflict in defense counsel's own trial schedule which results in counsel's absence on the morning of trial, by denying a motion for a continuance and forcing the defendant to trial without an attorn
  • State v. Ford 24 So. 3d 249 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    To support its assertion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to continue, Mr. Ford argues that he was “constructively” denied |4counsel and cites State v. Laugand, 99-1124 (La.3/17/00), .
  • State v. Clifton 997 So. 2d 642 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
    Defendant cites State v. Laugand, 99-1124, 99-1327 (La.3/17/00), , in support of his position that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to continue.
  • Distinguished State of Louisiana v. Darwin Gauthier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
  • Distinguished State v. Gauthier 916 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    State v. Laugand, 99-1124, 99-1327, pp. 1-3 (La.3/17/00), -36 .
  • State v. Johnson 892 So. 2d 28 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
    In State v. Laugand, 99-1124 (La.3/17/00), , the Louisiana Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion, reversed the defendant's conviction because the trial judge erroneously denied a motion to continue on the basis that counsel was unprepared.
  • State v. Bartley 871 So. 2d 563 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2004
    3 Cir. 3/6/96) , , and State v. Laugand, 99-1124, 99-1327 (La.3/17/00), .
  • State v. Odle 834 So. 2d 483 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    We note a more recent case, State v. Laugand, 99-1124, 99-1327 (La.3/17/00), , wherein the supreme court reversed the defendant's conviction because the defendant's pre-trial motion for continuance had been erroneously denied.
  • State v. Porche 780 So. 2d 1152 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
    The appellant compares his case to State v. Laugand, 99-1124 (La.3/17/00); 99-1327 (La.3/17/00), .