Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 La. 38 - State v. Rowan

State v. Rowan’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
3
states following
August 1983
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 1983

15 state decisions

110196419701980decided

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 Mapp v. Ohio · Ker v. State of California · Elkins v. United States · International Ass'n of MacHinists v. Street · State v. Johnson

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

  1. ““In support of his motion in arrest the accused cites and relies on State v. Broussard, 233 La. 866 , 98 So.2d 218 . We do not find that it is controlling here. Therein the defendant was charged with having committed ‘simply burglary of Cagnina’s Bar, in the City of Crowley * * *.’ The holding was that the bill of information fell short of the requirements of the law since it ‘failed to describe or particularize the houseboat “or other structure, water craft, movable as the case may be” purportedly unlawfully entered, and to specify or designate to whom it belonged * * * ’. In so concluding we followed the reasoning of State v. McDonald et al., 178 La. 612 , 152 So. 308 , that it is the essence of the crime of burglary that there be an illegal entering of some place, house or structure, and that ‘The American Hat Company’ was not a place, house or structure. In the instant case, on the other hand, the information recites that the accused did wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously break and enter the ‘store of J. J. Mayeaux’. Clearly this recitation connotes that a place or structure was illegally entered, and that it was owned by J. J. Mayeaux.””
    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.