State v. Barnes’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 1998 · most notably State v. Edwards (1972), State v. Franklin (1972)
41 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 Terry v. Ohio · Sibron v. State of New York Peters · Henry v. State of Mississippi · State v. Square · State v. Hudson
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An irregularity or error in the proceedings cannot be availed of after verdict unless it objected to at the time of its occurrence and a bill of exceptions is reserved to the adverse ruling of the court on such objection. Failure to reserve a bill of exceptions at the time of an adverse ruling of the court operates as-a waiver of the objection and as an acquiescence in the irregularity or ruling.” C.Cr.P. 841. “A. The appellate court shall consider only formal bills of exceptions which have been signed by the trial judge in conformity with Article 845. In a case where the death sentence has been imposed, the appellate court, to promote the ends of justice, may consider bills that have not been timely signed by the trial judge.” C.Cr.P. 844.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Pickett“A formal bill of exceptions shall contain only the evidence necessary to form a basis for the bill, and must show the circumstances and the evidence upon which the ruling was based .... (La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 844)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a motion to quash the indictment is not a proper remedy for an unconstitutional search and seizure. See LSA-C.Cr.P. Arts. 531-534.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Diaz
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.