de novo standard in Louisiana

2026State v. Hunt, 09-1589 (La. 12/1/09), 25 So. 3d 746 ; La.

2014As a general rule, we 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.” Hunt , 2009-1589, p. 6; 25 So.3d at 751 .

2013App. 1 Cir. 12/22/10), 68 So.3d 558, 560 ), aptly stated: Although a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash will generally not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion, see State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1245, 1251 , a trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review, see State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 504 .

2011Although a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash will generally not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion, see State v. Batiste, 05-1571, p. 9 (La.10/17/06), 939 So.2d 1245, 1251 , a trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review, see State v. Smith, 99-0606, p. 3 (La.7/6/00), 766 So.2d 501, 504 .

2025State v. Olivia, 13-0496, pp. 2- 3 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/26/14), 137 So.3d 752, 754 ; State v. Schmolke, 12- 0406, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), 108 So.3d 296, 299 ; see also State v. Hamdan, 12-1986, p. 6 (La. 3/19/13), 112 So.3d 812, 816 (noting that “[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).

2024App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), 108 So.3d 296, 299 ; see also State v. Hamdan, [20]12–1986, p. 6 (La.3/19/13), 112 So.3d 812, 816 (noting that “[o]n appeal from the trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash, the trial court’s legal findings are subject to a de novo standard of review”).

2015Accordingly, “this [C]ourt in reviewing a motion to quash involving solely a legal issue, such as presented in the instant ease, applies a de novo standard of review.” State v. Hall, 13-0453, p. 11 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/9/13), 127 So.3d 30, 39 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/09/13) (citing State v. Guillott, 12-0652, p. 4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/20/13), 155 So.3d 551, 554 ; State v. Schmolke, 12-0406, p. 2-4 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/16/13), 108 So.3d 296, 298-99 ).

2014This Court in State v. Hall, No. 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.

2019See Foti v. Holliday, 09-0093, p. 6 (La. 10/30/09), 27 So.3d 813, 817 ; Hershberger v. LKM Chinese, L.L.C., 14-1079, p. 2 (La.

2018Foti v. Holliday , 09-93 (La. 10/30/09), 27 So.3d 813 , 817.

2024Because the proper interpretation of a statute is necessarily a question of law, we apply a de novo standard of review.” Newman Marchive P’ship, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 2007-1890, p. 3 (La. 4/8/08), 979 So.2d 1262 , 1265; see also Holly & Smith Architects, Inc. v. St.

2024Id. (citing Newman v. Marchive P’hip, Inc. v. City of Shreveport, 07-1890, p. 3 (La. 4/8/08), 979 So.2d 1262 , 1265).

2023App. 4 Cir. 3/21/18), 242 So.3d 682, 688 (citing Red Stick Studio Dev., L.L.C. v. State ex rel.

2022App. 4 Cir. 3/21/18), 242 So.3d 682, 688 ) (observing that “‘when a matter involves the interpretation of a statute, it is a question of law, and a de novo standard of review is applied’”).

2018Samaha v. Rau , 07-1726 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So.2d 880 .

2018Samaha v. Rau , 07-1726 (La. 2/26/08), 977 So.2d 880 .

2024See Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 03-1734, p. 10 (La. 4/14/04), 874 So.2d 90, 99 .

2016On appeal, “legal sufficiency of the evidence challenges, such as those presented by ... motions for directed verdict ... are subject to the de novo standard of review that is used for all legal issues.” Hall v. Folger Coffee Co., 03-1734, p. 10 (La.4/14/04), 874 So.2d 90, 99 . “[T]he applicable standard of review on a motion for directed verdjct is whether the evidence in the record is such that a reasonable person could not reach a verdict to the contrary.” Richard v. Artigue, 11-1471, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 4/4/12), 87 So.3d 997, 1001 .

2018In performing a de novo review, "the appellate court must review the record in its entirety, giving no special weight to the trial court's determinations." Kyle v. Kier , 17-134, (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/15/17), 233 So.3d 708 , 715. "[U]nder the de novo standard of review, the appellate court ... review[s] the record in its entirety to determine whether the trial court's decision was legally correct in light of the evidence." Domingue v. Bodin , 08-62, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/08), 996 So.2d 654 , 656 (citations omitted).

2018See Domingue v. Bodin , 08-62 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/5/08) , 996 So.2d 654 ("under the de novo standard of review, the appellate court assigns no special weight to the trial court and, instead, conducts a de novo review of questions of law and renders judgment on the record.") In our de novo review, we review the entire record and make independent findings of fact and legal conclusions.

2026Ass’n v. State, 2004-0227, p. 35 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So. 2d 809, 836 ) (“Questions of law are reviewed under the de novo standard.”).

2025Ass’n v. State, 04-0227 (La. 1/19/05), 893 So. 2d 809, 836 (“Questions of law, such as the proper interpretation of a statute, are reviewed by this court under the de novo standard of review.”).

2016Kevin Associates, L.L.C. v. Crawford, 2003-0211, p. 15 (La.1/30/04), 865 So.2d 34, 43 .

2015Toomy v. Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System, 2010-1072 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/25/11) 63 So.3d 198, 201-202 , writ denied, 2011-1118 (La.10/2/11), 73 So.3d 383 , citing Kevin Associates, L.L.C. v. Crawford, 2003-0211 (La.1/30/04), 865 So.2d 34, 43 .

2019In State v. Wells, 08-2262, pp. 4-5 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 577 , 580-81 (alteration in original), the supreme court reiterated the appellate standard of review applicable to rulings on motions to suppress: 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.

2019In State v. Wells, 08-2262, pp. 4-5 (La. 7/6/10), 45 So.3d 577 , 580-81 (alteration in original), the supreme court reiterated the appellate standard of review applicable to rulings on motions to suppress: 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.

2019Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hospital, Inc., 93- 2512 ( La. 7/ 5/ 94), 639 So. 2d 730 , 750. " After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to P material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." La.

2018A motion for summary judgment shall be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admission on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." La.Code Civ.P. art. 966. "[I]f reasonable persons could only reach one conclusion, then there is no need for trial on that issue and summary judgment is appropriate." Hines v. Garrett , 04-806, p. 1 (La. 6/25/04), 876 So.2d 764 , 765-66 ( quoting Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc. , 93-2512, p. 27 (La. 7

2021Stobart v. State through Dept, of Transp. and Development, 617 So.2d 880, 882, n. 2 (La. 1993) Any legal issues are reviewed using the de novo standard of review, under which the trial court's legal conclusions are not entitled to deference.

2018Id. ( citing Stobart v. State, Dep't of Transp. and Dev. , 617 So.2d 880 (La.1993) ). * * * However, legal errors are reviewed under the de novo standard of review.