Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 212 La. 284 - State v. Mattio

State v. Mattio’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
4
states following
December 1992
most recently cited

86 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently December 1992 · most notably State v. Hunter (1967), State v. Simpson (1949)

86 state decisions

380194719501960197019801990decided

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. Dorsey · State v. Dallao · State v. Davis · State v. Walker · State v. Aspara

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

  1. ““It is not our intention to overrule the prior jurisprudence of this State, and particularly the various cases .cited by counsel for the State, in each of which defendant \was denied pre-trial inspection of written confession^ of codefendants, written statements of witnesses, or police reports in the hands of a sheriff, police department, or district attorney, and we do not overrule these cases.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The defendant Cauche complains of the ruling of the trial judge refusing him oyer and inspection of statements, reports, confessions, and documents alleged to be in the possession of the police department. We find no error in the ruling. So far as the documents called for were public in character, defendant was not entitled to their inspection until they had been used in open court. Section 5 of Act No. 242 of 1912, as amended by Act No. 255 of 1920, § 3. And so far as they were of a private nature, defendant was not entitled to their inspection until they were offered in evidence. State v. Lee, 173 La. 966 , 139 So. 302 ."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “the principal reason for denying a defendant the right to introduce in evidence his exculpatory declaration is that if he were permitted to do so he would be presenting his testimony to the jury without taking the witness stand and without running the risk of impeachment on cross-examination”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.