State v. Garner’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Emmons v. Agricultural Insurance Company (1963), State v. Canola (1977)
56 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Messersmith v. Messersmith · Commonwealth v. Almeida · Commonwealth v. Moyer · State v. Johnson · Commonwealth v. Macloon
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whenever the meaning of a statute appears doubtful, it is well recognized that we should seek the discovery of the legislative intent.” In LSA-R.S. 14:30— 31, the meaning of the word “offender” is not spelled out. We feel that its meaning can best be discovered by considering it in association with its accompanying words. In LSA-R.S. 14:31, it is recited that a homicide is committed when the [¿‘offender” is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony not enumerated in Article 30 or any intentional misdemeanor directly affecting the person. No mention is made therein that the. “offender” is responsible for the result of a self defensive act committed by the person attacked. No intimation is made that the “offender” stands in the shoes of the person protecting his person and property with arms. We believe, as did the trial judge, that the legislative intent in employing the word “offender” contemplated the actual killer. A consideration of the term “offender” in connection with the words accompanying it precludes our affirmation of the theory advanced by the State; it is quite obvious that the Legislature overlooked a situation similar to the instant one. “It has long been the unshaken rule of this State that penal statutes must be strictly construed and cannot be extended to cases not included within the clear import of its language.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Manslaughter is: * * * (2) A homicide committed, without any intent to cause death or great bodily harm. (a) When the offender is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any felony not enumerated in Article 30 or 30.1, or of any intentional misdemeanor directly affecting the person.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Myers““We must keep in mind that the law abhors a multiplicity of suits; the modern-day tendency is to relax the technical rules of pleading in order to arrive at the truth and dispose of a case in an expeditious manner. * * ” State v. Garner, 238 La. 563 , 115 So.2d 855, 857 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Smalling
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.