Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 287 SO2D 518 - State v. Edwards

State v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably 360 So. 2d 500 - State v. Drew (1978), State v. Gilmore (1976)

35 state decisions

15019731980199020002010decided

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 Wenzler v. Pitchess · State v. Square · State v. Johnson · State v. Wright · State v. Reese

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

  1. “"The provisions of our Code of Criminal Procedure are intended `to provide for the just determination of criminal proceedings.' They are to be construed `to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration, and the elimination of unjustifiable delay.'" La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 2.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he word `advantage' means gain, benefit, profit, superiority or favored position; the noun `immunity' means freedom or exemption from penalty, burden, duty or evil.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “When the indictment or bill of information is drawn in the short form authorized by Article 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bill of particulars authorized by Article 484 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to supplement it and supply the information necessary to enable the defendant in fairness to properly prepare his defense. However, bills of particulars cannot serve to cure a defective indictment or to supply the constitutional requirement that the accused be informed by the indictment of the nature and cause of the accusation. See La. Const. Art. I, § 9, [La. Const. Art. I, § 15 of the 1974 Constitution], requiring that `Prosecution shall be by indictment or information'. When the short form is used, and does not fully spell out in detail the nature and cause of the accusation, it meets constitutional requirements only where the crimes involved and the words used to charge them are well-understood. In such a case the nature and cause of the accusation may be inferred from such words of ordinary and well-understood meaning.”
    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.