Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite State v. Tran, 115 So. 3d 672.

23 citing documents.

State of Louisiana v. Rasheed McClebb La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2024
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 … 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, [2
State of Louisiana v. Calvin M. Williams Jr. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
App. 4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3.
State of Louisiana v. Michelle D. Harris La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2020
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-
State v. Wells 262 So. 3d 294 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 4/24/13), , 673, 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.
State v. Ioveniti 238 So. 3d 496 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
App. 4 Cir. 4/24/13), , 673.
State v. Vernon 207 So. 3d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2016
4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 ).
State v. Brown 176 So. 3d 761 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 4/24/13), (rulings on motions to quash involving mixed questions of law and fact are reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard).
State v. LeBlanc 173 So. 3d 1218 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 4/24/13), ; State v. Williams, 12-0110, p. 2 (La.App.
State v. Major 172 So. 3d 75 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 ).
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), 847 So
State v. Armstead 159 So. 3d 502 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
4 Cir. 4/24/13); , 673 n. 3 (Motion to quash under La.C.Cr.P.
State v. Jackson 154 So. 3d 722 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 ).
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), 847 So.2
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), 847 So
State v. Rainey 150 So. 3d 370 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 4/24/13), ; State v. Williams, 12-0110, p. 2 (La.App.
State v. Ruth 147 So. 3d 1177 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 4/24/2013), , we found no abuse of discretion by the trial courts in considering pharmacy-generated prescription records where those records contained the same information that La.
State v. Dixon 146 So. 3d 662 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2014
4 Cir. 4/24/13), n. 3 ).
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), 847 S
State v. Marcelin 131 So. 3d 427 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 4/24/13), , 673 n. 3(Motion to quash under La.C.Cr.P.
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), 847 So.2
State v. Reyer 129 So. 3d 752 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2013
4 Cir. 4/24/13), ; State v. Williams, 12-0110, p. 2 (La.App.
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), 847 S
State v. Franklin 126 So. 3d 663 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2013