Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Wells, 45 So. 3d 577.

104 citing documents.

State v. Jones 165 So. 3d 217 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
A In our review of a trial judge’s decisions, we grant great deference to findings of fact and “may not overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support those findings.” State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Hall 160 So. 3d 1060 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art. 703(D); State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Boyles 157 So. 3d 1170 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art. 703D; State v. Wells, 2008-2262 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Gayton 156 So. 3d 738 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
“We grant great deference to these findings of fact[] and will ‘not overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support [them].’ ” McClendon, 13-1454, p. 6; 133 So.3d at 245 (quoting State v. Wells, 08-2262, pp. 4-5 (La.7/6/10); -81 ).
State v. Fields 151 So. 3d 756 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
A trial court’s findings of fact, based on the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses at the motion to suppress hearing, may not be disturbed “unless there is no evidence to support those findings.” Id., pp. 13-14, 93 So.3d at 563 , quoting State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Dixon 146 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/30/14), , writ denied 14-0324 (La.2/19/14), (quoting State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), ).
State v. Taylor 143 So. 3d 1248 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
See State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Williams 144 So. 3d 56 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Stated another way, “a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress evidence is entitled to great weight and will not be set aside absent an abuse of discretion.” Id., 12-0949 at p. 4, 116 So.3d at 1007 (citing State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), ).
State v. Harris 140 So. 3d 1226 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2014
State v. Wells, 2008-2262 (La.07/06/10), .
State v. Greenberry 141 So. 3d 925 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Gates 145 So. 3d 288 La. 2014
Thompson , 2011-0915, p. 13; 93 So.3d at 563 ; Martin , 2011-0082, p. 6; 79 So.3d at 955 ; State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10); .
State v. Jefferson 140 So. 3d 235 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
art. 703; State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Everett 156 So. 3d 705 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Hall 134 So. 3d 671 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 4-5 (La.7/6/10); -581 .
State v. Thomas 138 So. 3d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/30/14), , writ denied 14-0324 (La.2/19/14), , 668, (quoting State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), ).
State v. Gregory 137 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 1/30/14), , writ denied 14-0324 (La.2/19/14), , (quoting State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), ).
State v. McClendon 133 So. 3d 239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
We grant great deference to these findings of fact, and will “not overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support those findings.” State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Candebat 133 So. 3d 304 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
LAW AND ANALYSIS In State v. Wells, 2008-2262, pp. 4-5 (La.7/6/10), -81 , the Supreme Court set out the standard of review relating to a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress: 17This court has recently restated the general rule that appellate courts review trial court rulings under a deferential standard with regard to factual and other trial determinations, while legal fin
State v. Lewis 126 So. 3d 652 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Alberti 128 So. 3d 351 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 08-2262 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Williams 128 So. 3d 359 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 08-2262 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Barabin 124 So. 3d 1121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Lockett 120 So. 3d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Lewis 121 So. 3d 128 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Caliste 131 So. 3d 902 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 703; State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Wilson 119 So. 3d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
art. 703; State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Ulmer 116 So. 3d 1004 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Cureaux 116 So. 3d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Wells, 2008-2262 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Lampton 110 So. 3d 557 La. 2013
State v. Wells, 08-2262, pp. 4-5 (La.7/6/10), -81 (“When a trial court makes findings of fact based on the weight of the testimony and the credibility of the witnesses, a reviewing court owes those findings great deference, and may not overturn those findings unless there is no evidence to support those findings....
State v. Magee 110 So. 3d 680 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Gilmore 156 So. 3d 46 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 08-2262, pp. 4-5 (La.7/6/10), (citation omitted).
State v. Reed 107 So. 3d 1262 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
See State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. King 109 So. 3d 941 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. McNair 107 So. 3d 806 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
In State v. Wells, 2008-2262, pp. 4-5 (La.7/6/10), -81 , the Supreme Court set out the standard of review: *811 This court has recently restated the general rule that appellate courts review trial court rulings under a deferential standard with regard to factual and other trial determinations, while legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review.
State v. $144,320.00 Tina Beers 105 So. 3d 694 La. 2012
In the context of an arrest, we have noted, “Probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonable and trustworthy information, are sufficient to justify a person of average caution in the belief that the accused has committed an offense.” State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 8 (La.7/6/10), -83 (internal citations omitted).
State of Louisiana v. Michael Wayne Collins La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10)
State v. Collins 101 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10); .
State v. Gibson 103 So. 3d 641 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
State v. Wells, 08-2262 (La.7/6/10), ; State v. Mims, 98-2572 (La.App.
State v. Butler 101 So. 3d 121 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 4 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Gray 101 So. 3d 515 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Harris 98 So. 3d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Wells, 08-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), ; State v. Pham, supra.
State v. Lampton 95 So. 3d 1199 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See also State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Thompson 93 So. 3d 553 La. 2012
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 4-5 (La.7/6/10); -581 .
State v. Lewis 85 So. 3d 150 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
See State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10), ; see State v. Pham, supra.
State v. Baldwin 79 So. 3d 1258 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
State v. Wells, 2008-2262 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Martin 79 So. 3d 951 La. 2011
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/10); .
State v. Williams 74 So. 3d 1208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
art. 703; State v. Wells, 08-2262 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Sander 69 So. 3d 730 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Wells, 08-2262 (La.7/6/10), .
State v. Thomas 70 So. 3d 96 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
State v. Wells, 2008-2262, p. 5 (La.7/6/2010), .
State v. Williams 62 So. 3d 244 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
1 | sLater, in State v. Wells, 2008-2262 (La.7/6/10), , the Supreme Court again addressed the issue of arrest pursuant to New Orleans Municipal Code 54-405.