Cited by

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

203 citing documents.

State v. Kitchens 35 So. 3d 404 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
As noted in State v. Love, 2000-3347, pp. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), , 1206: “[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.” See a
State of Louisiana v. Milton Anthony Wilks La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State v. Wilks 32 So. 3d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
See State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Cutno 69 So. 3d 423 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 5 (La.10/17/06), (citing State v. 8Love, *427 2000-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), ).
State v. Johnson 28 So. 3d 1167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Juane Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State ex rel. L.L. 23 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2009
See State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Millet, 2006-2908 (La.App.
State v. Shannon 17 So. 3d 1061 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State of Louisiana v. Juane Harris La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State v. Gaines 5 So. 3d 915 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 9-10 (La.5/23/03), -1207 .
State v. Armstard 991 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. COMADORE 984 So. 2d 203 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Scott, 04-1142 (La.App.
State v. Stewart 983 So. 2d 166 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
In State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), , the Court reviewed a defendant's right to a speedy trial according to the factors set out in Barker .
State v. Chisolm 983 So. 2d 191 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
In State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed these factors as follows: "In determining whether a defendant's right to speedy trial has been violated, courts are required to assess the following factors: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial
State v. Smith 982 So. 2d 831 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
In State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), , 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. HEDGSPETH 974 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2008
State v. Love, XXXX-XXXX (La.05/23/03), .
State v. Gibson 971 So. 2d 389 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
In State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed these factors as follows: In determining whether a defendant's right to speedy trial has been violated, courts are required to assess the following factors: (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, a
State v. Chambers 966 So. 2d 98 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
In State v. Love , XXXX-XXXX (La.5/23/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the relationship of the appellate and trial courts and stated: Because of 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 m
State v. Scott 958 So. 2d 725 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
5/23/03), ; State v. Scott, 04-1142 (La.App.
State v. Harvey 956 So. 2d 684 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
State v. Batiste, 2005-1571, p. 5 (La.10/17/06), (citing State v. Love, 2000-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), ).
State v. Campechano 956 So. 2d 673 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
In 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. Ross 955 So. 2d 167 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
See, e.g., State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 14-21 (La.5/23/03), -1213 .
State v. Payton 954 So. 2d 193 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Shanklin 953 So. 2d 84 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Scott, 04-1142 (La.App.
State v. Stevenson 952 So. 2d 742 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
State v. Batiste, XXXX-XXXX, p. 5 (La.10/17/06), , 1249 citing State v. Love, XXXX-XXXX, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Williams 951 So. 2d 1158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
See State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), , and State v. Scott, 2004-1142 (La.App.
State v. Guice 950 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
See, State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), , and State v. Harris, 2003-0524 (La.App.
State v. Dees 950 So. 2d 50 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2007
In State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), , the Court discussed the relationship of the appellate and trial courts and stated: Because of 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 onl
State v. Walker 947 So. 2d 801 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
See, State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), , and State v. Harris, 2003-0524 (La.App.
State v. Bias 947 So. 2d 797 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
State v. Love, 00-3847 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Scott, 04-1142 (La.App: 4 Cir. 7/27/05), .
State v. Reddick 944 So. 2d 751 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
The Supreme Court has most recently discussed this issue in State v. Battiste, 05-1571 (La.10/17/06), — So.2d - Citing State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), , the court reiterated: A 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.
State v. Millet 946 So. 2d 196 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
See State v. Love , XXXX-XXXX (La.5/23/03), , and State v. Scott, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
State v. Batiste 939 So. 2d 1245 La. 2006
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 14 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Jones 940 So. 2d 61 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Brown 937 So. 2d 419 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Love, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Scott, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
State v. $107,156 U.S. Currency Seized, from Marlin Morton & Richard Woods 935 So. 2d 827 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2006
In State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether an appellate court abused its discretion in overturning a trial court’s denial of a motion to quash where the defendant argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated.
State v. Polk 933 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
The Louisiana Supreme Court emphasized in State v. Love, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/23/03), , the trial court's ruling on a motion to quash on speedy trial grounds must be given deference and should only be reversed by the appellate court if there was a palpable abuse of discretion.
State v. Hill 931 So. 2d 1146 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
See State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Scott, 04-1142 (La.
State v. Brown 929 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. Love, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/23/03), ; State v. Scott, XXXX-XXXX (La.App.
State v. Breaux 920 So. 2d 274 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2005
State v. Love, 00-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Scott 913 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
State v. Batiste 904 So. 2d 766 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
In State v. Love, XXXX-XXXX (La.5/23/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether an appellate court abused its discretion in overturning a trial court's denial of a motion to quash where the defendant argued that his right to a speedy trial was violated.
State of Louisiana v. Arthur Major III La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Major 898 So. 2d 548 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 16 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Holliday 874 So. 2d 174 La. 2004
See State v. Love, 00-3347, pp. 1-5 (La.5/23/03), -1216 .
State v. Alexander 875 So. 2d 853 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
State v. Love, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 11-12 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Quinones 864 So. 2d 824 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2003
State v. Love, 00-3347, p. 6 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Boatner 862 So. 2d 964 La. 2003
As expressed in State v. Love, 2000-3347 (La.5/23/03), , determination of whether a district attorney abused his power to enter a nolle prosequi then reinstate charges in response to a district court’s denial of his motion for continuance should be based on three primary considerations: (1) the discretion of the district court, (2) the grounds stated by the State for seek
State v. Lewis 855 So. 2d 290 La. 2003
See State v. Byron C. Love, 02-3347 (La.5/23/03), .
State v. Keller 859 So. 2d 743 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Recently, in State v. Love , XXXX-XXXX (La.5/23/03), , the Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether a defendant's right to a speedy trial had been violated, and the court emphasized that the facts and circumstances of each individual case determine the propriety of the motion to quash where the district attorney enters a nolle prosequi and then reinstitutes the charge

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by