State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2005
18 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 Summerell v. Phillips · State v. Hudson · Mathis v. New Jersey · State v. Gatlin · City of Shreveport v. Pedro
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Acts 37, 325, and 648 of 1974 represent an attempt by the legislature to overrule the decisions of this Court that have held these local option elections and ordinances invalid since the deletion of the "savings clause" in 1950. We considered similar legislation in Sissons [ 292 So.2d 523 (La.1974)] and we reaffirm that holding. The 1974 legislation can operate prospectively only; it can render valid ordinances and local option elections contrary to the requirements which were violated in this case only if those elections and those ordinances occurred after the effective date of the 1974 Acts. However, these 1974 Acts cannot revive those elections and ordinances which we have already declared null and void on the basis of prior legislative action." ( 305 So.2d at 408 )”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) It is an exercise of local opinion on a parish-wide basis in contravention of R.S. 26:582. [3] (2) It purports to prohibit beverages with an alcoholic content which by the terms of R.S. 26:588 may not be regulated by local prohibition. (3) The penalties under the ordinance grossly exceed those allowed under R.S. 26:595.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Section 1. Section 588 of Title 26 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950 is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: "§ 588. Beverages under 3.2 percent alcohol may not be prohibited except where such prohibition was in effect prior to 1948. Prohibition of the sale of any or all alcoholic beverages by a local option election held pursuant to this chapter shall not operate as a prohibition of the manufacturing, producing, using, distributing, storing or selling of beverages containing more than one-half of one percent alcohol by volume but not more than three and two-tenths percent alcohol by weight, except where a local option election was held on a parish-wide, ward or other basis, and an ordinance was subsequently adopted by the local governing authority, specifically including but not limited to parish-wide ordinances adopted by the police jury, and was in effect prior to 1948 pursuant to the results of any such election prohibiting the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than one-half of one percent by volume. It is the solemn expression of the legislative will that this section or any other provision of this chapter shall not be construed in any way whatsoever as or have the effect of vitiating or affecting any such ordinance adopted and in effect prior to 1948 pursuant to a local option election held on a parish-wide, ward or other basis which ordinance prohibited the sale of beverages containing alcohol of more than one-half of one percent by volu”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tolar v. State
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.