Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 So. 3d 984 - State v. Mathews

109 So. 3d 984 - State v. Mathews’s Empirical Analysis

2013

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Barker v. Wingo · 847 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Love · 939 So. 2d 1245 - State v. Batiste · Gray v. King · 913 So. 2d 843 - State v. Scott

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Thus, [pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 536] technically the trial court could not consider a constitutional speedy trial claim because it was not raised in writing by any of the defendants. Nonetheless, the state did not object to the court’s consideration of this claim and in fact addressed it in its responses and in its appellate brief. We find that this failure waived any claim it may have that the trial court could not consider this issue.”
    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.