322 So. 2d 177 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2000
20 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 Vale v. Louisiana · John McDonald v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · United States v. Sealy, Inc. · State v. Guidry · State v. Vale
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There is no substance to this argument. Habitual offender statutes have survived constitutional attack so often that their validity is no longer a matter of serious doubt. See McDonald v. Massachusetts, 180 U.S. 311 , 21 S.Ct. 389 , 45 L.Ed. 542 (1901). The constitutionality of La.R.S. 15:529.1 has been upheld by this court several times. It is well established that the law does not make it a crime to be a multiple offender; it merely prescribes an enhanced penalty for multiple offenders. As an enhancement-of-penalty provision, the statute does not punish a status, nor does it impose cruel and unusual punishment. See State ex rel. Williams v. Henderson, 289 So.2d 74 (La. 1974); State v. Vale, 252 La. 1056 , 215 So.2d 811 (1968), rev'd on other grounds, 399 U.S. 30 , 90 S.Ct. 1969 , 26 L.Ed.2d 409 (1970); State v. Guidry, 169 La. 215 , 124 So. 832 (1929). See also Price v. Allgood, 369 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 998 , 87 S.Ct. 1321 , 18 L.Ed.2d 349 (1967)." See also State v. Bullock, La., 329 So.2d 733 (1976).”
2 later decisions 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.