Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 La. 859 - State v. Bienvenu

State v. Bienvenu’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
November 1979
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 1979 · most notably 305 So. 2d 514 - State v. James (1974), State v. Bickham (1960)

25 state decisions

801945195019601970decided

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. Dreher · State v. McDonald · State v. State · State v. Hewitt · State v. Pridgen

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

  1. “The sole office of a bill of particulars is to give the adverse party information which the pleadings by reason of their generality do not give and to compel the State to observe certain limitations in offering evidence. A bill of particulars cannot change the offense charged nor in any way aid an indictment or information fundamentally bad.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"If a defendant desires to be advised of the specific acts of which he is accused and applies for and obtains a bill of particulars, he does so on his own behalf and for his sole benefit. He does not do this to correct an invalid indictment or bill of information for the State. He only seeks additional information to more properly prepare his defense. La. Code Crim.Proc. arts. 484 and 485."”
    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.