Cited by

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

203 citing documents.

State v. Lawson 129 So. 3d 792 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Tucker 126 So. 3d 834 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 8/4/10), ; State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Robyn B. Little Davis La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State of Louisiana v. Carol Noland Saltzman La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2013
State v. Davis 129 So. 3d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2 Cir. 1/9/08), ; State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/08), .
State v. Saltzman 128 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
2 Cir. 1/9/08), ; State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/08[03]), .
State v. Hall 127 So. 3d 30 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. 9-10 112(La.5/23/03), (“[b]eeause 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. Bell 122 So. 3d 1007 La. 2013
See State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), -14 (Weimer, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part).
State v. Dillon 124 So. 3d 1144 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 3/7/12), (citing State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), -07 ).
State v. Jones 117 So. 3d 97 La. 2013
See State v. Love, 00-3347 (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 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. Taylor 118 So. 3d 65 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 12 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Jordan 118 So. 3d 1235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Tran 115 So. 3d 672 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 8/4/10), ; see also State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), (”[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 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. Mendoza 113 So. 3d 288 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 2/28/07), (citing State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), ).
State v. Travis 109 So. 3d 1036 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Price 156 So. 3d 68 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2013
State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Jones, 41,449 (La.App.
State v. Jones 107 So. 3d 1285 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), , the Court stated: “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 di
State v. Mathews 109 So. 3d 984 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
In State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), , the Court stated: “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 di
State v. Chairs 106 So. 3d 1232 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Bell 106 So. 3d 754 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
“Louisiana courts understand that determination of motions to quash in which the district attorney entered a nolle pros and later reinstituted charges should be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the individual case.” State v. Love, 00-3847, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Brumfield 104 So. 3d 701 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2012
In State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 12 (La.5/23/03), , the Court discussed the standard of review in such cases involving rulings on motions to quash: When a trial judge exercises his discretion to deny a motion to quash, he presumably acts appropriately, based on his appreciation of the statutory and procedural rules giving him the right to run his court.
State v. Glasser 104 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
|4In State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an appellate court is allowed to reverse a trial court’s judgment on a motion to quash only if that finding represents an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.
State v. McKenzie 105 So. 3d 959 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Love, 00-8347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/08), .
State v. Davis 105 So. 3d 981 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Louisiana Supreme Court has held that “[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 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, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Sanders 104 So. 3d 619 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 3/24/10), -07 ; State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/07), .
State v. Waddell 102 So. 3d 1025 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Louisiana Supreme Court has instructed us in State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), , that the complementary role of trial courts and appellate courts demands that defer *1029 ence be given to a trial court’s discretionary decision.
State v. Williams 101 So. 3d 533 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 1/9/08), ; 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 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. Paul 126 So. 3d 519 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/02), , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that “[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 to reverse a trial court judgment on a motion to quash only if that finding represents an abuse o
State v. Keeling 96 So. 3d 596 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Fleming 95 So. 3d 1125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 12 (La.5/23/03), (“When a trial judge exercises his discretion to deny a motion to quash, he presumably acts appropriately, based on his appreciation of the statutory and procedural rules giving him the right to run his court.
State v. Luther 91 So. 3d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
Notwithstanding the extent of his discretionary prosecutorial authority in the dismissal-reinstitution of formal charges, the district attorney may not, however, flaunt “his authority for reasons that show he wants to favor the State at the expense of the defendant, such as putting the defendant at risk of losing witnesses.” State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Duncan 91 So. 3d 504 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 8/4/10), ; see also State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 12 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Williams 89 So. 3d 422 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
The Court stated that a trial court’s resolution of motions to quash, in cases where the district attorney entered a nolle prosequi and later reinsti-tuted charges, should be decided on a case-by-case basis, quoting State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), , 1209: “In those cases where it is evident that the district attorney is flaunting his authority for reasons that show that he wants to favor the state at the expense of the defendant, such as putting the defendant at risk of losing witn
State v. Nye 89 So. 3d 411 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 8/4/10), ; State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 12 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Banks 92 So. 3d 464 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
he district attorney is flaunting his authority for reasons that show that he wants to favor the State at the expense of the defendant, such as putting the defendant at risk of losing witnesses, the trial court should grant a motion to quash and an appellate court can appropriately reverse a ruling denying a motion to quash in such a situation.” Id., citing State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.05/23/03), .
State v. Durham 90 So. 3d 1126 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
4 Cir. 2/28/07), (citing State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), ).
State v. Brown 88 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), -07 .
State v. Buckley 88 So. 3d 482 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
STANDARD OF REVIEW Under State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 6, (La.5/23/03), , 1206-1207 and State v. Grimes, 2001-0576, p. 6, (La.
State v. Lommasson 81 So. 3d 796 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Hayes 75 So. 3d 8 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
The Supreme Court cited to its earlier decision in State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Dillon 72 So. 3d 473 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
See State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La.10/17/06), .
State v. King 60 So. 3d 615 La. 2011
See, e.g., State v. Batiste, 05-1571 (La.10/17/06), ; State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Brown, 05-1146 (La.App.
State v. Kumar 58 So. 3d 544 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Armstard, supra.
State of Louisiana v. Jonathan Edward Boyer La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
5/23/03), the supreme court stated that “analysis of the length of the delay does not stop with a finding that the State did not violate the statutory provisions, because the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right.” This court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the July 7, 2005 motion to quash based
State v. Boyer 56 So. 3d 1119 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
In State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 17 (La.5/23/03), , the supreme court stated that “analysis of the length of the delay does not stop with a finding that the State did not violate the statutory provisions, because the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right.” This court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the July 7, 2005 motion to quash based on its fin
State v. Vernell 68 So. 3d 553 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Roach 68 So. 3d 558 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State of Louisiana v. C.W. W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
5/23/03), the court found a twenty-two month delay was presumptively prejudicial.
State v. King 48 So. 3d 1288 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 13 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Sorden 45 So. 3d 181 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), ; State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 10 (La.5/23/03), -1207 .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by