187 So. 3d 71 - State v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 630 So. 2d 1278 - State v. Robertson · 915 So. 2d 291 - State v. Juniors · 682 So. 2d 713 - State v. Allen · State v. Odenbaugh · State v. Lindsey
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When assessing whether a challenge for cause should be granted, the district judge must look at the juror's responses during his or her entire testimony, not just "correct" isolated answers or, for that matter, "incorrect," isolated answers. Id. [ State v. Lindsey, p. 3 (La. 1/17/07), 948 So.2d 105 , 107-08.] A prospective juror's seemingly prejudicial response is not grounds for an automatic challenge for cause, and a district judge's refusal to excuse him on the grounds of impartiality is not an abuse of discretion, if after further questioning the potential juror demonstrates a willingness and ability to decide the case impartially according to the law and evidence. Id., 06-255, p. 4, 948 So.2d at 108 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n ruling on a challenge for cause, the trial court is vested with broad discretion and its ruling will be reversed only when the voir dire record as a whole reveals an abuse of discretion.”
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.