342 So. 2d 183 - State v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably 360 So. 2d 500 - State v. Drew (1978), State v. Chopin (1979)
56 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 Terry v. Ohio · Brady v. State of Maryland · Chimel v. California · United States v. Agurs · Beck v. State of Ohio
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The informer privilege is the privilege of withholding the identity of an informant who supplies information to law enforcement officials concerning crime. It is founded upon public policy and seeks to advance the public interest in effective law enforcement. Roviaro v. United States, [ 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S.Ct. 623 , 1 L.Ed.2d 639 ] supra. This court has consistently held that a confidential informant’s identity will be divulged only under exceptional circumstances. State v. Robinson, 342 So.2d 183 (La.1977); State v. Russell, 334 So.2d 398 (La.1976); State v. Thorson, 302 So.2d 578 (La.1974). The general rule is that the burden is upon the defendant to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and much discretion is vested in the trial judge on the question of whether the circumstances warrant disclosure. State v. Robinson, supra; State v. Russell, supra; State v. Dotson, 260 La. 471 , 256 So.2d 594 (1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 913 , 93 S.Ct. 242 , 34 L.Ed.2d 173 (1972); State v. Greenbaum, 257 La. 917 , 244 So.2d 832 (1971).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The Fourth Amendment does not require a policeman who lacks the precise level of information necessary for probable cause to arrest to simply shrug his shoulders and allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape. On the contrary Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response . . . A brief stop of a suspicious individual, in order to determine his identity or to maintain the status quo momentarily while obtaining more information, may be most reasonable in light of the facts known to the officer at the time."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A law enforcement officer may stop any person in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or a misdemeanor and may demand of him his name, address and explanation of his actions. (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision 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.