363 So. 2d 499 - State v. Swift’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. “"... Although counsel should not be permitted to mold the witness' testimony, a verdict should not be reversed in the absence of a clear abuse calculated to prejudice the accused's rights. State v. Sheppard, 350 So.2d 615 (La.1977); State v. Washington, 294 So.2d 794 (La.1974)." State v. Swift, 363 So.2d 499, 505 (La. 1978).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 410 So. 2d 689 - State v. Chapman · 415 So. 2d 190 - State v. Vanderhoff

2. “"The argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case. "The argument shall not appeal to prejudice. "The state's rebuttal shall be confined to answering the argument of the defendant."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 422 So. 2d 370 - State v. Felde

3. “LSA-R.S. 15:277 provides: A leading question is one which suggests to the witness the answer he is to deliver, and though framed in the alternative, is inadmissible when propounded to one's own witness, unless such witness be unwilling or hostile.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 524 So. 2d 526 - State v. Mims