217 So. 3d 628 - State ex rel. K.L.’s Empirical Analysis
2017
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Terry v. Ohio · Hudson v. Palmer · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · New Jersey v. T. L. O.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In a juvenile adjudication proceeding, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the child committed a delinquent act alleged in the petition. La. Ch.C. art. 883 ; State in the Interest of D.M. , 97-0628, p. 4 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/07/97), 704 So.2d 786 , 789. On appeal, the standard of review for the sufficiency of evidence, enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the state proved the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt; this standard is applicable to delinquency cases. La. C.Cr.P. art. 821. Interest of D.M ., 97-0628 at p. 5, 704 So.2d at 789 . Further, in a juvenile delinquency proceeding, an appellate court is constitutionally mandated to review the law and facts. La. Const. art. 5, § 10 (B). Accordingly, an appellate court must review the record to determine if the trial court was clearly wrong in its factual findings. State in the Interest of L.C. , 96-2511, p. 3 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/20/97), 696 So.2d 668 , 670 ; Interest of D.M. , 97-0628 at p. 4, 704 So.2d at 789 -90 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State ex rel. H.J.
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.