347 So. 2d 483 - State v. Anthony’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably 428 So. 2d 444 - State v. Seiss (1983), State v. Smith (1983)
67 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 State v. Dotson · State v. Edwards · 337 So. 2d 1177 - State v. Marks · State v. Grey · 343 So. 2d 1026 - State v. Williams
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The trial court's ruling was correct. We find the following pertinent in reaching our conclusion: (1) The alleged retained attorney neither appeared in court to verify his retention, nor communicated with the trial judge in any other way; (2) the record reflects only defendant's statement that a third party had contacted and retained the attorney and that defendant had only had a telephone conversation with the attorney; (3) appointed counsel had filed a prior motion on the same ground regarding another alleged retained counsel; (4) the motion was made on the morning of trial; and (5) the alleged retained counsel neither made an appearance nor contacted the court either during the trial or on the Motion for New Trial. We are convinced, as was the trial judge, that defendant's request was a dilatory tactic."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The verdict of the jury rendered against him . . . is contrary to the law and evidence in the following particulars: "A. The jury finding that the can of `Halt' spray, was a dangerous weapon within the meaning of LRS 14:2(3) is clearly contrary to the evidence presented by the defense at trial, and the law of the State of Louisiana; "B. The jury finding that defendant, James J. Robinson, robbed Melvin Light is further contrary to the evidence presented by the defense at trial. "Defendant is aggrieved by the said verdict of the jury, and desires and is entitled to a new trial, pursuant to Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, Article 851(1) [that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence.]"”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“without benefit of probation, parole or suspension of sentence,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sepcich
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.