State v. Vale’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1989 · most notably Vale v. Louisiana (1970), State v. Hudson (1969)
64 state decisions
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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Carroll v. United States · Boyd v. United States · Draper v. United States · Weeks v. United States
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"D. If, at any time, either after conviction or sentence, it shall appear that a person convicted of a felony has previously been convicted of a felony under the laws of this state, or has been convicted under the laws of any other state or of the United States; ..." (Emphasis added).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Although the appellate jurisdiction of this court is specifically limited by our constitution to questions of law alone, when it is asserted there is a total lack of evidence to support the conviction of the crime charged, or any element thereof, this raises a question of law that is subject to our review. In other words, this court lacks jurisdiction to decide a question of fact or the sufficiency of the evidence relating to the guilt or innocence of a party accused in a criminal prosecution; but, where there is some evidence, whether it be direct or circumstantial, to sustain the conviction, the Supreme Court cannot pass upon the sufficiency thereof, as that comes within the exclusive province of the jury. State v. Campbell, 173 La. 831 , 138 So. 853 ; State v. Verret, 174 La. 1059 , 142 So. 688 ; State v. Fountain, 175 La. 221 , 143 So. 55 ; State v. Bonner, 193 La. 387 , 190 So. 621 ; State v. Haddad, 221 La. 337 , 59 So.2d 411 ; State v. Champagne, 251 La. 849 , 206 So.2d 518 .” See, also, State v. Plaisance, 252 La. 212 , 210 So.2d 323 ; State v. Page, 251 La. 810 , 200 So.2d 503 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pagnotta“substantially contemporaneous therewith * * *.”
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.