Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 La. 316 - State v. Hebert

State v. Hebert’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
March 1971
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1971

9 state decisions

60192619301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on State v. John · 2 Okla. Crim. 300 - Fletcher v. State · State v. Selsor · State v. Munlin · State v. Mines

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

  1. ““The rule announced in State v. Mines, supra, affords protection to a defendant accused of the offense of selling intoxicating liquor for beverage purposes, when the district attorney refuses to divulge the name or identity of the so-called prosecuting witness until he is called' to the witness stand. It might be better practice, more economical in the administration of justice, and perhaps fairer in some instances, for the district attorney to let the defendant know the name of the so-called prosecuting witness before the trial, rather than to give him the right to interrupt the trial by demanding a continuance when the witness is called to the stand; but that is a matter for the district attorneys and district judges to consider. The defendant- did not ask for a continuance when the name and identity of the so-called prosecuting witness was divulged in this case; and it is too well settled by the jurisprudence to be reconsidered nowthat the district attorney could not be compelled to divulge the name or identity of the so-called prosecuting witness before the trial.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.