State v. Shuff’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently June 1979
18 state decisions
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. Nahoum · State v. Sharbino · State v. Tullos · State v. Johnson · State v. Conners
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The proposition is not well founded. In the first place, the remarks of the-district attorney were fair comment-made in answer to the argument of defense counsel. Article 382 of the Code-of Criminal Procedure declares: “ ‘Counsel have the right to draw from the evidence received, or from the- failure to produce evidence shown to be in the possession of the opposite party, any conclusion which to them may seem fit, but counsel have no right to draw from such evidence or suppression of evidence an incorrect conclusion of law.’ “ * * * It is well settled that a conviction will not be reversed because of the remarks of the district attorney which are provoked by opposing counsel, particularly when the jury is properly instructed with respect thereto by the trial judge and there is nothing in the record to show that the jury was actually influenced by such remarks or that they contributed to the verdict returned by them. *. * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Scott““ ‘A prosecuting officer is required to base his argument and his deductions and conclusions * * * upon the-evidence adduced * * State v. Conners, 142 La. 206 , 76 So. 611 . ‘The-district attorney should always be careful not to go beyond proper limits, and', not to take positions in argument that: are not sustained by the testimony; but. he is within reasonable bounds permitted to argue the case with some degree of freedom, to the extent necessary in,. presenting the cause.’ State v. Johnson, 119 La. 130 , 43 So. 981, 982 . See,. also, Marr’s Criminal Jurisprudence in. Louisiana, Second Edition, Vol. , 2,,. Section 656, p. 1002; and State v. Tullos, 190 La. 184 , 182 So. 321 .” State v. Shuff, 198 La. 67 , 3 So.2d 278 . -”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Scott
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.