140 So. 3d 904 - State v. Dickerson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Under the "law of the case" doctrine, prior decisions of the appellate court are considered binding and may not be reconsidered on appeal absent clear error. Juneau v. State , 06-1653 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/07) , 956 So.2d 728 , writ denied , 07-1177 (La. 9/14/07), 963 So.2d 1004 ; State v. Molineux , 11-275 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/19/11) , 76 So.3d 617 , writ denied , 11-2556 (La. 3/30/12), 85 So.3d 117 . "[T]he [law of the case] doctrine is discretionary and should not be applied where it would effectuate an obvious injustice or where the former appellate decision was clearly erroneous." Juneau , 956 So.2d at 733 (quoting Trans La. Gas Co. v. La. Ins. Guar. Ass'n , 96-1477 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/9/97) , 693 So.2d 893 , 896 ) (alternations in original). .... As this honorable court has already ruled on the issue of whether Defendant is entitled to discover the identities of the informants, it may not be reconsidered on appeal absent clear error by the appellate court. Defendant has failed to present any new evidence showing that the denial amounted to clear error or an unjust result. As such, we shall not reconsider Defendant's right to discover the identity of the informants on appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 260 So. 3d 679 - State v. Bourg

2. “doctrine, prior decisions of the appellate court are considered binding and may not be reconsidered on appeal absent clear error. Juneau v. State , 06-1653 (La.App. 3 Cir. 5/2/07) , 956 So.2d 728 , writ denied , 07-1177 (La. 9/14/07), 963 So.2d 1004 ; State v. Molineux , 11-275 (La.App. 4 Cir. 10/19/11) , 76 So.3d 617 , writ denied , 11-2556 (La. 3/30/12), 85 So.3d 117 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 260 So. 3d 679 - State v. Bourg

3. “[t]he jury could have reasonably interpreted Defendant's behavior of not going to the police and destroying evidence as an attempt to avoid apprehension, a circumstance from which a trier of fact may infer a guilty conscience.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Frinks