Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Louisiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Louisiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Arnoldgreen2 sentences2020State v. Arnold, 367 So.2d 324, 326 (La.1979). 2007State v. Arnold, 367 So.2d 324, 326 (La.1979). | 3 | 3 |
Harrison v. State ex rel. Department of Public Safety & Correctionsgreen1 sentence1997A “reasonable probability” of a different result is accordingly shown when the government’s evidentiary suppression “undermines confidence in the outcome of trial.” Quoting Kyles and, in turn, Bagley , the Louisiana Supreme Court instructed this Court to determine “whether, as the result of the State’s untimely disclosure, the inability of the defense to place [before the jury] all evidence relevant to the reliability of the victim’s identification testimony ‘undermines confidence in the outcome of trial.’ ” Walter, 96-1702, p. 1, 695 So.2d at 1341 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Louisiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kyles v. Whitley
green
2 sentences2025On remand, the court of appeal must determine whether as the result of the state’s untimely disclosure, the inability of the defense to place all evidence relevant to the reliability of the victim’s identification testimony “‘undermines confidence in the outcome of trial.’” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. at 1566 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678 , 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3381 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1984)). 4 The DA and the Innocence Project New Orleans (the “Innocence Project”), on Mr. Walter’s behalf, filed the Joint Motion. 2025On remand, the court of appeal must determine whether as the result of the state’s untimely disclosure, the inability of the defense to place all evidence relevant to the reliability of the victim’s identification testimony “‘undermines confidence in the outcome of trial.’” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. at 1566 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678 , 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3381 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1984)). 4 The DA and the Innocence Project New Orleans (the “Innocence Project”), on Mr. Walter’s behalf, filed the Joint Motion. | 3 | 1997–2025 |
United States v. Bagley
green
2 sentences2025On remand, the court of appeal must determine whether as the result of the state’s untimely disclosure, the inability of the defense to place all evidence relevant to the reliability of the victim’s identification testimony “‘undermines confidence in the outcome of trial.’” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. at 1566 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678 , 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3381 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1984)). 4 The DA and the Innocence Project New Orleans (the “Innocence Project”), on Mr. Walter’s behalf, filed the Joint Motion. 2025On remand, the court of appeal must determine whether as the result of the state’s untimely disclosure, the inability of the defense to place all evidence relevant to the reliability of the victim’s identification testimony “‘undermines confidence in the outcome of trial.’” Kyles, 514 U.S. at 434 , 115 S.Ct. at 1566 (quoting United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 678 , 105 S.Ct. 3375, 3381 , 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1984)). 4 The DA and the Innocence Project New Orleans (the “Innocence Project”), on Mr. Walter’s behalf, filed the Joint Motion. | 2 | 1997–2025 |
Spreadbury v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUB. SAFETY
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Robideau v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Albert
green
1 sentence1984State v. Albert, 414 So.2d 680 (La.1982). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.