Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 315 So. 2d 749 - State v. Bluain

315 So. 2d 749 - State v. Bluain’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
2
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 2014 · most notably 406 So. 2d 1331 - State v. Edwards (1981), 350 So. 2d 615 - State v. Sheppard (1977)

38 state decisions

15019751980199020002010decided

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 Taylor v. Louisiana · State v. Bonanno · 310 So. 2d 89 - State v. Lindsey · State v. Bonner · 279 So. 2d 177 - State v. Hubbard

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

  1. “"The function of an arraignment is to notify the defendant of the charge against him. LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 551. Defendant was arraigned on the original indictment. His plea of not guilty also applied to the amended indictment, since the amendment was designed to cure deficiencies and not to alter the nature of the crime. [Citations omitted]. Under these circumstances, rearraignment was unnecessary." ( State v. Bluain, 315 So.2d at 752)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Prior to trial, the District Attorney was allowed to substantively amend the indictment to describe the unnatural sex acts charged that constituted the violation of the statute. The defendant argued that he was entitled to be rearraigned on the amended indictment. In that case we held:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"Defendant in the instant case makes no showing that any special class was systematically excluded or that he was deprived of a trial before an unbiased jury or that he was compelled to accept an obnoxious juror.”
    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.