320 So. 2d 116 - State v. Dillard’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 2010 · most notably 684 So. 2d 349 - Deloch v. Whitley (1996), 340 So. 2d 208 - State v. Clark (1976)
29 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 Furman v. Georgia · 278 So. 2d 485 - State v. Douglas · State v. Howard · State v. Crook · State v. Franklin
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A change of venue shall be granted when the applicant proves that by reason of prejudice existing in the public mind or because of undue influence, or that for any other reason, a fair and impartial trial cannot be obtained in the parish where the prosecution is pending. In deciding whether to grant a change of venue the court shall consider whether the prejudice, the influence, or the other reasons are such that they will affect the answers of jurors on the voir dire examination or the testimony of witnesses at the trial.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Stewart · State v. Morris“The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the jury venire on the basis of selection procedures which fail to insure representation of a fair cross section of the community- Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to quash the jury venire. He claimed that, because the venire was selected from lists of licensed drivers and registered voters in the parish, it failed to insure a representation of a fair cross section of the community. On appeal, the defendant argues that other sources, such as telephone listings and church membership roles, should have also been utilized in choosing the jury veni-re in order to provide a representative cross section of the community. This argument is meritless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““B. A motion to quash shall be filed at least three judicial days before commencement of trial, and may be filed with permission of the court at any time before commencement of trial, when based on any of the following grounds: “(2) The general venire or the petit jury venire was improperly drawn, selected, or constituted; D. The grounds for a motion to quash under Paragraphs B and C are waived unless a motion to quash is filed in conformity with those provisions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Smith
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.