247 So. 3d 129 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2018
Citation profile
1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Miller v. Alabama · Miller v. Alabama · Garner v. Jones · Montgomery v. Louisiana · 816 So. 2d 1272 - State v. Everett
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.
“any consideration of La. C.Cr.P. art. 878.1 and La. R.S. 15:574.4(E) in resentencing the defendant, would not have been, contrary to the defendant's assertion, an ex post facto violation”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Preston“U.S. Const. Art. I, § 10 and La. Const. art. I, § 23 prohibit ex post facto application of criminal law by the State,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Preston“the application of La.C.Cr.P. art. 871 and La. R.S. 15:574.4(E-G).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Preston
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.