State v. Maffett’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 2014
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · North Carolina v. Alford · 338 So. 2d 584 - State v. Crosby · Paalan v. United States · 585 So. 2d 540 - State v. Strain
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The decision to grant or deny a motion for continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and a reviewing court will not disturb a trial court’s determination absent a clear abuse of discretion. La.C.Cr.P. art. 712; State v. Harris, 2001-2730 (La.1/19/05), 892 So.2d 1238 , cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S.Ct. 102 , 163 L.Ed.2d 116 (2005). Even when an abuse of discretion is shown, the supreme court typically declines to reverse a conviction based on denial of a continuance absent a showing of specific prejudice. State v. Harris, supra; State v. Hill, 46,050 (La.App.2d Cir.4/20/11), 64 So.3d 801 , writ denied, 2011-1078 (La.11/14/11), 75 So.3d 940 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Coleman
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.