Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 416 So. 2d 1298 - State v. Moore

416 So. 2d 1298 - State v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
September 2015
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 2015

14 state decisions

1101982199020002010decided

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 Johnson v. State of New Jersey · 404 So. 2d 1192 - State v. Jones · 412 So. 2d 553 - State v. Stephenson · 408 So. 2d 1220 - State v. Moore · State v. Lee

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

  1. ““[2,3] It is the date of entry of the guilty plea in the predicate offense which usually determines the applicability of the Jones requirements. The requirements of Jones are clearly applicable when the guilty plea in the predicate offense was entered after September 24, 1981 (the date of finality of Jones). On the other hand, the requirements of Jones are usually inapplicable when the guilty plea in the predicate offense was entered on or before September 24, 1981, the only exception being when the ‘case’ involving the currently charged offense had been filed and was pending in this court on September 10, 1981 when Jones was rendered.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “in all cases where 14:75 stipulations were entered prior to Broussard. We did not conclude that full retroactive application of our previous extensions of Boykin was warranted when we considered the issue in LeBlanc, Jones and Moore , and we have been presented with no argument that persuades us to adopt a different retroactivity rule for stipulations entered under R.S. 14:75. As we noted in Moore : Refusal to decree retroactive application is particularly logical in a situation ...in which retroactive application would effectively grant”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““.. . to guilty pleas entered after this decision becomes final." 404 So.2d at 1196 . (Emphasis added)”
    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.