344 So. 2d 1039 - State v. Frank’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 39 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 398 So. 2d 1049 - State v. Jones (1981), 430 So. 2d 124 - State v. Tully (1983)
1 federal appellate · 39 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 United States v. Wade · Gilbert v. California · United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. · Johnson v. United States · 315 So. 2d 675 - State v. Carlisle
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) the prior acquaintance of the witness with the accused; "(2) the length of time the witness observed the perpetrator before, during, and after the commission of the offense; "(3) the circumstances under which the observation was made, i. e., the illumination at the scene, the witness's physical capacities, and the witness's emotional state at the time of the observation." State v. Frank, 344 So.2d 1039 at 1042 (La., 1977).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“A judge's disposition to impose a lenient sentence during plea discussions should not be understood as setting a limit for the justifiable sentence under accepted principles of criminal justice. The better view, we think, is that the plea proposal is a concession from the greatest justifiable sentence, the concession being made because of circumstances surrounding the plea.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(iv) that the defendant has made public trial unnecessary when there are good reasons for not having the case dealt with in a public trial; (v) that the defendant has given or offered cooperation when such cooperation has resulted or may result in the successful prosecution of other offenders engaged in equally serious or more serious criminal conduct; (vi) that the defendant by his plea has aided in avoiding delay (including delay due to crowded dockets) in the disposition of other cases and thereby has increased the probability of prompt and certain application of correctional measures to other offenders.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Frank v. Blackburn
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.