133 So. 3d 25 - State v. Kelly’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This Court in State v. Hall, 2013-0453 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/9/13) , 127 So.3d 30, 38-39 , recently noted that although generally a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion; when the motion to quash involves solely a legal issue the trial court’s decision is subject to a de novo standard of review. Here, however, because Defendant’s motion to quash is based on prescription and involves some factual determinations, this Court applies an abuse of discretion standard of review. See, State v. Dillon, 2011-0188, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 8/24/11), 72 So.3d 473, 475 (trial court rulings on motions to quash on grounds of prescription are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard); State v. Brown, 2005-1146, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 7/26/06), 937 So.2d 419, 422 (the appropriate standard of review on a motion to quash based on a violation of defendant’s' right to speedy trial is the abuse of discretion standard).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 156 So. 3d 1285 - State v. Williams

2. “[I]n order to interrupt the time period to bring a defendant to trial, the State must prove that a defendant failed to appear at any proceeding “pursuant to actual notice, proof of which appears of record.” La.C.Cr.P. art. 579(A)(3). Thus, 'although certified mail may constitute adequate notice for appearance and bond forfeiture under La.C.Cr.P. art. SMD), the mere mailing of notice is insufficient to. establish an interruption under La.C.Cr:P. art. 579(A)(3), as it explicitly requires proof of actual notice, which must appear in the record.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 182 So. 3d 300 - State v. Billiot

3. “[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”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 262 So. 3d 294 - State v. Wells