State v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “"Defendant has raised the discrepancy for the first time on this appeal. This Court has consistently held that the alleged deficiencies in the Bill of Information or Indictment cannot be raised for the first time after conviction where in fact the defendant has been fairly informed of the charge against him, where the indictment does in fact charge a crime, when the defendant may be protected against further prosecution by the double jeopardy provision, and when he has not been prejudiced by surprise or lack of notice. State v. James, La., 305 So.2d 514 (1974). . . ." (Emphasis added).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Michels · 346 So. 2d 181 - State v. Williams

2. “"On September 24, 1972, Deputy Sheriff Donald Miller received a call to come to Soileau's Grocery and Pool Hall. When he arrived, he talked to several people and received a report that a shooting had occurred in which Clifton Anderson, Sr., an acquaintance of his, was allegedly involved. The Deputy was at the grocery from five to ten minutes. Without further investigation, he drove to Anderson's home, arriving there in about fifteen minutes. After he knocked at the door, Anderson came outside. The Deputy Sheriff advised him that anything he said `would be . . . evidence against him.' In response to the Deputy Sheriff's general inquiry (what happened at Soileau's place?), Anderson freely related to Deputy Miller that he had shot at Clifton Williams, who was in a group `fixing to bunch up on his son,' and that he did not intend to shoot the lady. He added that the gun was with his son, but did not inform the Deputy of the whereabouts of his son. The Deputy's contact with the defendant at the home lasted about five minutes."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hodges

3. “"Both the state and federal jurisprudence support the view that a single, general inquiry made to the defendant at his home during an investigation and prior to his arrest does not constitute custodial interrogation. See, e. g., United States v. Sicilia, 475 F.2d 308 (CA7 1973); Simon v. United States, 421 F.2d 667 (CA9 1970), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 904 , 90 S.Ct. 1691, 26 L.Ed.2d 62 ; State v. Noriega, 6 Ariz.App. 428 , 433 P.2d 281 (1967); People v. Fischetti, 47 Ill.2d 92 , 264 N.E.2d 191 (1970); State v. McDonald, Iowa, 190 N.W.2d 402 (1971); Bernos v. State, 10 Md.App. 184 , 268 A.2d 568 (1970); People v. P., 21 N.Y.2d 1 , 286 N.Y.S.2d 225 , 233 N.E.2d 255 (1967); State v. Crossen, 10 Or.App. 442 , 499 P.2d 1357 (1972); Ison v. State, 281 Ala. 189 , 200 So.2d 511 (1967); Stout v. State, 244 Ark. 676 , 426 S.W.2d 800 (1968); People v. Routt, 100 Ill.App.2d 388 , 241 N.E.2d 206 (1968); Annot., Custodial Interrogation—Miranda Rule, 31 A.L.R.3d 565 , at 587-595."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hodges