176 So. 3d 465 - State v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 630 So. 2d 1284 - State v. Rome · In Re Succession of Boyter · 737 So. 2d 14 - Jacobs v. City of Bunkie · 705 So. 2d 724 - Sudwischer v. Estate of Huffpauir · 985 So. 2d 722 - State v. Romar
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. The period of limitation established by Article 578 shall be interrupted if: (1) The defendant at any time, with the purpose to avoid detection, apprehension, or prosecution, flees, from the state, is outside the state, or is absent from his usual place of abode within the state; or (2) The defendant cannot be tried because of insanity or because his presence for trial cannot be obtained by legal process, or for any other cause beyond the control of the state; or (8) The defendant fails to appear at any proceeding pursuant to actual notice, proof of which appears of record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In the absence of contrary legislative expression, substantive laws apply prospectively only. Procedural and interpretative laws apply both prospectively and retroactively, unless there is a legislative expression to the contrary.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[s... the addition of Subpart C to Article 579 eliminates any doubt as to when an interruption of the time period for bringing a defendant to trial ends. It relieves the State of the obligation to search for a defendant who fails to appear for a scheduled court date and places the burden on a defendant who is subsequently arrested to take affirmative steps to end that interruption. Under Subpart C, the defendant may do so by either appearing in open court or providing “notice” to the district attorney “of the [his] custodial location.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 579 C. Notice, as defined in this part “shall mean ... [fjiling in the court record by either the defendant or his counsel advising the court of his incarceration with a copy provided to the district attorney and certification of notice provided to the district attorney.” La. C.Cr.P. art. 579 C(l)(emphasis added).”
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.