108 So. 3d 288 - State v. Major’s Empirical Analysis
2013
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
May 2015
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Masino · State v. Gerstenberger · 708 So. 2d 401 - State v. Byrd · 312 So. 2d 282 - State v. Rembert · State v. Patterson
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.
“A motion to quash is, essentially, a mechanism whereby pre-trial pleas are urged, i.e., pleas which do not go to the merits of the charge. At a hearing on such a motion, evidence is limited to procedural matters and the question of factual guilt or innocence is not before the court. La.C.Cr.P. art. 531 et. seq.; State v. Rembert, 312 So.2d 282 (La. 1975); State v. Patterson, 301 So.2d 604 (La.1974). In considering a motion to quash, a court must accept as true the facts contained in the bills of information and in the bill of particulars, and determine as a matter of law and from the face of the pleadings, whether a crime has been charged; while evidence may be adduced, such may not include a defense on the merits. State v. Gerstenberger, 260 La. 145 , 255 So.2d 720 (1971); State v. Masino, 214 La. 744, 750 , 38 So.2d 622 (1949) (“the fact that defendants may | iahave a good defense is not sufficient grounds to quash the indictment”).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.