324 So. 2d 373 - State v. Reed’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably 543 So. 2d 886 - State v. Lindsey (1989), State v. Batiste (1978)
1 federal appellate · 28 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 Swain v. State of Alabama · Taylor v. Louisiana · Harrison v. United States · Daniel v. Louisiana · United States v. Lucchese
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.
“The effect of granting a new trial is to set aside the verdict or judgment and to permit retrial of the case with as little prejudice to either party as if it had never been tried.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Batiste · State v. Lee“"As a minimum, it would seem that the article was intended to mask from the jury members the fact that a defendant before them had previously been convicted."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 797(2) and (3) provides: The state or the defendant may challenge a juror for cause on the ground that: (2) The juror is not impartial, whatever the cause of his partiality. An opinion or impression as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant shall not of itself be sufficient ground of challenge to a juror, if he declares, and the court is satisfied, that he can render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence; (3) The relationship, whether by blood, marriage, employment, friendship, or enmity between the juror and the defendant, the person injured by the offense, the district attorney, or defense counsel, is such that it is reasonable to conclude that it would influence the juror in arriving at a verdict;”
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.