Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State in the Interest of C.D., 93 So. 3d 1272.

13 citing documents.

State of Louisiana in the Interest of D.W. La. 2023
State of Louisiana in the Interest of A.J. J. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2023
State of Louisiana in the Interest of L.L. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2023
7/2/12), State in Interest of W.S., 18-0070 (La.
State of Louisiana in the Interest of R.R. B. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
State of Louisiana in the Interest of C.N. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2022
Vs. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
7/2/12), -78, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the applicable standard of review in juvenile cases as follows: In vacating the juvenile court’s delinquency adjudication of defendant, the court of appeal noted the state’s case rested entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of Officer Dob
Vs. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2021
7/2/12), -78, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the applicable standard of review in juvenile cases as follows: In vacating the juvenile court’s delinquency adjudication of defendant, the court of appeal noted the state’s case rested entirely on the uncorroborated testimony of Officer Dobard
State ex rel. D.J.S. 255 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
State in the Interest of D.J.S. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
State ex rel. H.J. 238 So. 3d 586 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
7/2/12), , 1276 (internal quotations, alterations, and citations omitted).
State ex rel. M.J. 160 So. 3d 1040 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
Id.; State in the Interest of C.D., 11-1701, p. 6 (La.7/2/12), .
State v. Small 147 So. 3d 1274 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See Neal, 00-0674, p. 11, 796 So.2d at 658 ; State in the Interest of C.D., 11-1701, p. 6 (La.7/2/12), (per curiam) (“[ejyewitness testimony alone is usually sufficient in the mill run of cases”).
State v. Ferdinand 107 So. 3d 1266 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
However, in State in the Interest of C.D., 2011-1701 (La.7/2/12), , the Louisiana Supreme Court recently emphasized just how unusual the fact Inpattern in Mussall was, stating that “Mussall stands as the single, sui generis, exception to that rule in this Court’s jurisprudence [that eyewitness testimony alone is usually sufficient], and it is distinguished by its truly bizarre facts