395 So. 2d 714 - State v. Stott’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Horton v. California (1990), State v. Dorthey (1993)
1 federal appellate · 28 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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · South Dakota v. Opperman · Sedillo v. United States · Johnson v. Louisiana · Apodaca v. Oregon
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"If, at any time, either after conviction or sentence, it shall appear that a person convicted of a felony has previously been convicted of a felony ... the district attorney of the parish in which subsequent conviction was had may file an information accusing the person of a previous conviction." LSA-R.S. 15:529.1(D) (emphasis added)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“a `finding' ancillary to the imposition of sentence.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“A hearing on a multiple offender bill is a trial in only a very broad sense. It is more pertinently an inquiry into defendant's prior criminal conviction or convictions, as part of the sentencing process. Technical inadequacies in the state's documentation at such `trial' mandates a negative determination by the court. On the other hand, such a determination is not a conclusive one `on a fact distinctly put in issue,' as is the case where, relative to prosecution for Commission of a criminal offense, there is a judgment that defendant be freed `as a matter of substantive law'.”
2 later decisions 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.