Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 384 SO2D 784 - State v. West

State v. West’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 2015

4 state decisions

201980199020002010decided

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. Kunzler

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

  1. “Although relator was not prevented from presenting his evidence within the period of limitation, neither was he required to do so, having timely filed and vigorously urged his motion early in the proceedings. From the outset, counsel resisted the bond forfeiture and made known to the court the facts warranting an annulment of the judgment. By commencing proceedings to set aside the forfeiture well within the six month period, counsel earned a reasonable extension of the deadline for producing his evidence. Cf. State v. Kunzler, 248 La. 133 , 177 So.2d 112 (1965). His acquiescence in the continuances of the hearing could not fairly operate to defeat his meritorious claim.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.