Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 191 So. 3d 630 - State v. Lambert

191 So. 3d 630 - State v. Lambert’s Empirical Analysis

2016

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Manson v. Brathwaite · Chambers v. Mississippi · Washington v. Texas · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall

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

  1. “[a]lthough a sentence is within the statutory limits, the sentence may still violate a defendant's constitutional right against excessive punishment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “One-on-one identifications are generally not favored, although such identification procedures are permissible when justified by the circumstances. State v. Briley , 13-1421, p. 16 (La. App. 4 Cir. 10/1/14), 151 So.3d 633 , 643 ; State v. Nelson , 08-0584, p. 5 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/17/08), 3 So.3d 57 , 60. One-on-one identifications are permissible when the accused is apprehended within a relatively short period of time after the occurrence of the crime and is returned to the scene for immediate identification. Briley , 13-1421, p. 16 , 151 So.3d at 643-644 ; State v. Robinson , 09-0922, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/10/10), 50 So.3d 158 , 160. Immediate confrontation assures the reliability of the identification (given that the perpetrator's appearance is fresh in the witness's mind), lessens the possibility that the perpetrator's clothes or appearance will be changed, and insures early release of innocent subjects. Nelson , 08-0584, pp. 5-6 , 3 So.3d at 61 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] sentence is unconstitutionally excessive when it imposes punishment grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime, makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment, or constitutes nothing more than needless infliction of pain and suffering.”
    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.