DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Nicholes v. Motors Insurance Corp., 680 So. 2d 1165.

422 citing documents.

  • State of Louisiana v. Vincent Devonte Dotson AKA Vincent Dotson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
  • State of Louisiana v. Steven Blunt AKA Steven L. Blunt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Blunt 201 So. 3d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
  • State v. Thomas 201 So. 3d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Jon Wray Baumberger La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477, p. 6 13 (La.2/22/06), State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96)
  • State v. Baumberger 200 So. 3d 817 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Lewis 195 So. 3d 495 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Wilson 189 So. 3d 513 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Thompson 189 So. 3d 1139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Jones 188 So. 3d 268 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    P. art. 821, does not provide the appellate court with a vehicle to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact finder; State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Porter 185 So. 3d 153 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Patrick Michael Shelvin AKA - Patrick Shelvin La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State of Louisiana v. Ceasar James Williams -Aka- Ceaser James Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact- finder.‖ State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Gaubert 179 So. 3d 982 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    State v. Robertson 96-1048, p. 1 (La.10/4/96), ; , 850-(La., 1990): A reviewing court may intervene in the trier of fact’s decision only to the extent necessary to guarantee due process of law.
  • State v. Shelvin 181 So. 3d 879 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State v. Williams 181 So. 3d 857 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Barry Roy La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Roy 177 So. 3d 1103 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Glenn Von Ross La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.‖ State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Moody 178 So. 3d 1031 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Williams 178 So. 3d 1051 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Bell 179 So. 3d 683 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Clark 181 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.02/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/04/96), .
  • State v. Demery 165 So. 3d 1175 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Baker 166 So. 3d 1152 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Jared Paul Pontiff La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.‖ State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Pontiff 166 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State v. Mitchell 163 So. 3d 858 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Thompson 163 So. 3d 139 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Brian Lowell Frazier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
  • State v. Murray 161 So. 3d 918 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Troy Edward Delozier La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Delozier 151 So. 3d 173 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Quint Mire La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Mire 149 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    This standard does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048, p. 1 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Carl J. Webb, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Morning 149 So. 3d 925 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Webb 149 So. 3d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State v. Byrd 145 So. 3d 536 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Ted Dwayne Stevens, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Stevens 140 So. 3d 1267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    It does not | fiallow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Daniel Joseph Harmon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Wendell Price La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Rodney L. Johnson, Sr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Johnson 140 So. 3d 854 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State v. Price 139 So. 3d 1259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State v. Harmon 139 So. 3d 1195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    art. 821, does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Alcide Hypolite La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05–477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96–1048 (La.10/4/96), ).
  • State v. Hypolite 139 So. 3d 687 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ; ).
  • State of Louisiana v. Ernest R. Billiot La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
    It does not allow the appellate court “to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.” State v. Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), (citing State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), ).