State v. McDermitt’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably 420 So. 2d 1126 - State v. Graham (1982), 827 So. 2d 488 - State v. Murray (2002)
88 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. Sepulvado · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur · State v. Prestridge · State v. Holmes
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"§ 70.1. Medicaid fraud The crime of medicaid fraud is the act of any person, who, with intent to defraud the state through any medical assistance program created under the federal Social Security Act and administered by the Department of Health and Human Resources: (1) Presents for allowance or payment any false or fraudulent claim for furnishing services or merchandise; or (2) Knowingly submits false information for the purpose of obtaining greater compensation than that to which he is legally entitled for furnishing services or merchandise; or (3) Knowingly submits false information for the purpose of obtaining authorization for furnishing services or merchandise. Whoever commits the crime of Medicaid Fraud shall be imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or may be fined not more than ten thousand dollars, or both."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although intent is a question of fact, it need not be proven as a fact; instead, it may be inferred from circumstances of transactions and actions of the accused.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Palmer · State v. Adams“(1) there must be clear and convincing evidence of the commission of the other crimes and the defendant's connection therewith; State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973) [6] ...; (2) the modus operandi employed by the defendant in both the charged and uncharged offenses must be so peculiarly distinctive that one must logically say they are the work of the same person. State v. Jackson, 352 So.2d 195 (La.1977); State v. Lee, 340 So.2d 1339, 1345 (La.1976) ...; (3) the other crimes evidence must be substantially relevant for some other purpose than to show a probability that the defendant committed the crime on trial because he is a man of criminal character; State v. Frederick, 340 So.2d 1353 (La.1976); (4) the other crimes evidence must tend to prove a material fact genuinely at issue; State v. Ledet, 345 So.2d 474 (La.1977); (5) the probative value of the extraneous crimes evidence must outweigh its prejudicial effect. State v. Sutfield, 354 So.2d 1334 (La.1978); State v. Jackson, 352 So.2d 195 (La.1977).”
1 later decision 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.