Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Love, 847 So. 2d 1198.

203 citing documents.

State v. Vernon 207 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Gourgues 204 So. 3d 1051 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5/23/03), , 1206 and State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La.
State v. Smith 204 So. 3d 1035 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
5/23/03), , “Only if there is a presumptively prejudicial’ delay will courts proceed to analyze the other Barker factors.” Id.
State v. Otkins-Victor 193 So. 3d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Victor 195 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State of Louisiana Versus Errol Victor, Sr. La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2016
State v. Brown 193 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
See State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. Burrell 189 So. 3d 481 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
State v. Lester, 49,787 (La.App.2d Cir.05/20/15), ; citing State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.05/23/03), .
State v. Billiot 182 So. 3d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
A trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash is discretionary, and should not be reversed absent a clear abuse,.of discretion: State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/07), .
State of Louisiana v. Woodrow Karey, Jr. AKA Woodrow Karey, II La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Karey 180 So. 3d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
role of trial courts and appellate courts.” State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 9 (La.5/23/03), .
In Re: Matter Under Investigation La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2015
State v. Jones 178 So. 3d 1112 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 3/24/10), -07 ; State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/07), .
State v. LeBlanc 173 So. 3d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 10/10/12), ; State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Barnett 174 So. 3d 748 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.05/23/03), ; State v. Stanley, 49,683 (La.App.2d Cir.01/14/15), .
State v. Domino 216 So. 3d 898 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/07), ; State v. Sorden, 2009-1416, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Lester 165 So. 3d 1181 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
State v. Stanley, 49,683 (La.App.2d Cir. 1/14/15), , citing State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Major 172 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
“Because the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision, an appellate court is allowed to reverse a trial court judgment on a motion to quash only if that finding represents an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.” State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Jones 165 So. 3d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
ned deference is rooted in the limitations of our appellate jurisdiction set forth in Article 5, Section 10(B) of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides: “In criminal cases, [an appellate court’s] jurisdiction extends only to questions of law.” This limited scope of review also stems from the “complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts,” State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 9 (La.5/23/03), , as district judges have the unique “opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility
State v. Butler 162 So. 3d 455 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 ) (explaining that “[i]n reviewing rulings on motions to quash where there are mixed questions of fact as well as law, as here, a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to quash is discretionary and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion”); State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), (“[because the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision, an appellate court is allowed
State v. Brown 161 So. 3d 99 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 1/9/08), ; State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
See, e.g., State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03); (Motion to quash based on Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights and the reinstitution of prosecution); State v. Tran, 12-1219, p. 2 (La.App.
State v. Stanley 161 So. 3d 1034 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2015
Typically, appellate courts apply an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to quash; see, State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Calvin James Catalon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Catalon 158 So. 3d 114 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 9 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Gayton 156 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Const. art. V, § 10(B), which provides, “In criminal cases [an appellate court’s] jurisdiction extends only to questions of law.” Excessive intrusion into the factual findings of trial judges imbalances the “complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts,” State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 9 (La.5/23/03); , as trial judges have the unique “opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony.” Wells , 08-2262, p. 5; 45 So.3d at 581 .
State v. Richardson 155 So. 3d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 (explaining that “[i]n reviewing rulings on motions to quash where there are mixed questions of fact as well as law, as here, a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to quash is discretionary and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion”); State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), (“[because the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision, an appellate court is allowed to
State v. Trepagnier 154 So. 3d 670 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
App. 4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 ) (explaining that "[i]n reviewing rulings on motions to quash where there are mixed questions of fact as well as law, as here, a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to quash is discretionary and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion”); State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ("[bjecause the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court's discretionary decision, an appellate court is al
State of Louisiana v. Khanh H. Nguyen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State v. Nguyen 150 So. 3d 562 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Noel 151 So. 3d 706 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), (“Because the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision, an appellate court is allowed to reverse a trial court judgment on a motion to quash only if that finding represents an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”).
State v. Ordonez 151 So. 3d 94 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Pierre 146 So. 3d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Taylor 143 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), (noting that deference is granted to trial judges’?
State v. Jones 144 So. 3d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 (explaining that “[i]n reviewing rulings on motions to quash *122 where there are mixed questions of fact as well as law, as here, a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to quash is discretionary and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion”); State v. Love, 003347, pp. 910 (La.5/23/03), (“[bjecause the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision, an appellate court is allowe
State v. Martin 141 So. 3d 933 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Coleman 142 So. 3d 130 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), (“An appellate court is allowed to reverse a trial court judgment on a motion to quash only if that finding represents an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.”).
State v. Jones 144 So. 3d 1092 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Jones, 2012-0565, p. 5 (La.App.
State v. Greathouse 140 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), -07 .
State v. Major 140 So. 3d 174 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
3 State v. Ramirez, 07-0652, p. 4 (La.1/9/08), , citing State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/07), .
State v. Thomas 138 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), -1207 (setting forth that the complementary roles of our trial courts and intermediate appellate courts demand that deference be given to a trial judge’s discretionary decisions).
State v. Gregory 137 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See also State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), (Setting forth that the complementary roles of the trial courts and our intermediate appellate courts demand that deference be given to a trial judge’s discretionary decisions).
State v. Quinn 136 So. 3d 267 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. McClendon 133 So. 3d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Const. art. 5, § 10(B), which provides: “In criminal cases, [an appellate court’s] jurisdiction extends only to questions of law.” This limited scope of review also stems from the “complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts,” State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 9 (La.5/23/03), , as district judges have the unique “opportunity to observe the witnesses and weigh the credibility of their testimony.” Wells , 08-2262 at p. 5, 45 So.3d at 581 .
State v. Anderson 132 So. 3d 1265 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Jordan, 12-0930, p. 3 (La.App.
State v. Kelly 133 So. 3d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/9/08), ; State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/07), (“[b]e-cause the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision, an appellate court is allowed to preverse a trial court judgment on a motion to quash only if that finding represents an abuse of the trial court’s discretion”).
State v. Marcelin 131 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
See, e.g., State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), (Motion to quash based on Sixth Amendment speedy trial rights and the reinstitution of prosecution); State v. Tran, 12-1219, p. 2 (La.App.
State v. Boudreaux 131 So. 3d 342 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 2/28/07), (citing State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), ).
State v. Brady 131 So. 3d 166 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 (explaining that “[i]n reviewing rulings on motions to quash where there are mixed questions of fact as well as law, as here, a trial judge’s ruling on a motion to quash is discretionary and should not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion”); State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), (“[b]ecause the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that deference be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision, an appellate court is allowed t
State v. Reyer 129 So. 3d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 10/10/12), ; State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .