State v. Clouatre’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently February 2000 · most notably 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur (1973), 360 So. 2d 500 - State v. Drew (1978)
59 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 · State v. Smith · State v. Johnson · State v. Dell · State v. Smith
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Upon motion of a defendant, a mistrial shall be ordered when a remark or comment, made within the hearing of the jury by the judge, district attorney, or a court official, during the trial or in argument, refers directly or indirectly to: "(1) Race, religion, color or national origin, if the remark or comment is not material and relevant and might create prejudice against the defendant in the mind of the jury; "(2) Another crime committed or alleged to have been committed by the defendant as to which evidence is not admissible; "(3) The failure of the defendant to testify in his own defense; or "(4) The refusal of the judge to direct a verdict. An admonition to the jury to disregard the remark or comment shall not be sufficient to prevent a mistrial. If the defendant, however, requests that only an admonition be given, the court shall admonish the jury to disregard the remark or comment but shall not declare a mistrial."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lee · State v. May“"In questioning the prospective jurors on voir dire, the prosecutor asked them whether they would accept the law to the effect that the quantity of heroin possessed by an accused is unimportant to the charge of possession of narcotics, so long as some quantity is in his possessionsuch as the residue in some object, a minimal amount. Defense counsel objected to the question and the objection was overruled. "No abuse of discretion results from this ruling. Although we think this questioning treads unduly close to that stage of excessive inquiry into the law which is objectionable, the circumstances reveal no abuse of the trial judge's discretion."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lee“"During voir dire examination the prosecutor read Section 962 of Title 40 of the Revised Statutes, the statute defining the crime of which he is charged, in order to ascertain from the prospective jurors whether they entertained objections to enforcing the law governing the possession of narcotics such as heroin. "Although we have disapproved lengthy statements of particular phases of law to jurors on voir dire examination, this incident only involves a verbatim recitation of the statute under which the accused was charged. "Considering the discretion which the law invests in the trial judge this ruling was proper."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lee
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.