338 So. 2d 665 - State v. Badon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[Defendant’s] constitutional argument rests on the discretionary power given the District Attorney by which he decides whether or not to invoke the provisions of the habitual offender statute. This argument was explicitly rejected in Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448 , 82 S.Ct. 501 , 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962). The United States Supreme Court stated: Moreover, the conscious exercise of some selectivity in enforcement is not in itself a federal constitutional violation. Even though the statistics in this case might imply a policy of selective enforcement, it was not stated that the selection was deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion, or other | ¿arbitrary classification. Therefore grounds supporting a finding of a denial of equal protection were not alleged. Oregon v. Hicks ( 213 Or. 619 , 325 P.2d 794 (1958)); cf. Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944); Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 , 6 S.Ct. 1064 , 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886) (by implication).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 762 So. 2d 154 - Townley v. State, Department of Public Safety & Corrections

2. “"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)." [Emphasis added.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Adams

3. “"The state and the defendant shall have the right before argument to submit to the court special written charges for the jury. Such charges may be received by the court in its discretion after argument has begun. The party submitting the charges shall furnish a copy of the charges to the other party when the charges are submitted to the court. A requested special charge shall be given by the court if it does not require qualification, limitation, or explanation, and if it is wholly correct and pertinent. It need not be given if it is included in the general charge or in another special charge to be given."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 473 So. 2d 886 - State v. Reynolds