DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

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. Lantibious A. Broussard AKA Lantipious A. Broussard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Mack 144 So. 3d 983 La. 2014
    6 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Percy 137 So. 3d 184 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. Jose Luis Segura, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Blueford 137 So. 3d 54 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Banks 134 So. 3d 1235 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. Davis 134 So. 3d 1257 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. Sidney John Handy 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 of Louisiana v. Jamaal Cole Diggs La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State of Louisiana v. Isiah Demon Lively La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • State v. Diggs 154 So. 3d 15 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. Handy 154 So. 3d 9 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. Lively 153 So. 3d 1061 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. Lubrano, 563 So.2d |fl847 (La.1990)).
  • State of Louisiana v. Jessie James Duplantis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Duplantis 127 So. 3d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Cook 127 So. 3d 992 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State v. Pigford, 2005-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State of Louisiana v. William King, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. King 124 So. 3d 623 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Robyn B. Little Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    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. Carol Noland Saltzman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    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. Davis 129 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Saltzman 128 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Humphries 124 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. York 121 So. 3d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Martin 121 So. 3d 170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    1 Cir. 4/4/96), , writ granted in part, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), , the First Circuit found that the circumstances did not indicate that the defendant intended to distribute the five to eight grams of crack cocaine recovered from him.
  • State of Louisiana v. Thomas Kirk Gaton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    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. Kelvin Moses La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    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. Aaron Francois La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State v. Francois 114 So. 3d 678 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. James R Francis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
  • State of Louisiana v. Ernest Joseph Arceneaux La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    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. Francis 111 So. 3d 529 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Arceneaux 111 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Willis J. Mouton AKA Willis James Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    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. Mouton 129 So. 3d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
    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. Stanley Charles Young, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    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. James Lee Burks, III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
    It does not allow the appellate court ―to substitute its own appreciation of the evidence for that of the fact-finder.‖ State v. 13 Pigford, 05-477, p. 6 (La.2/22/06), State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96)
  • State v. Carper 107 So. 3d 118 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/04/96), .
  • State of Louisiana v. Dexter Holder La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Jeremiah R. Teno La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Teno 101 So. 3d 1068 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Holder 101 So. 3d 1059 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    The Jackson standard of review does not allow the ap *1064 pellate 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. Jonathan L.citizen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Chad Tyrone Williams La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State of Louisiana v. Larry Joseph McKithern La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. McKithern 93 So. 3d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    It does not allow the appellate court “to 17substitute 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. Terry L. Clarkson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • State v. Jefferson 91 So. 3d 1007 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    State v. Pigford, 05-0477 (La.2/22/06), ; State v. Robertson, 96-1048 (La.10/4/96), .
  • State v. Clarkson 86 So. 3d 804 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
    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. Michael D. Patterson La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012