428 So. 2d 1215 - State v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably State v. Cottingin (1985), 496 So. 2d 1379 - State v. Cottingin (1986)
77 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 · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos · State v. Abercrumbia · 389 So. 2d 1263 - State v. Douglas
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] sentence is excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense. State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355, 358 (La.1980). In determining whether the penalty is grossly disproportionate, the court must consider `the punishment and the crime in light of the harm to society caused by its commission, and determine whether the penalty is so disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock our sense of justice.' Id. In reviewing a claim of excessive sentencing, the trial judge is to be afforded wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by him should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of his discretion. State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982).”
28 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Prejean · State v. Barbre““Although the trial court need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance presented in Art. 894.1, the record must reflect that it adequately considered these guidelines in particularizing the sentence to the defendant. However, a trial judge’s failure to articulate every factor listed in Art. 894.1 will not necessitate a remand for resentenc-ing when there is an adequate factual basis for the sentence in the record. State v. Lanclos, 419 So.2d 475 (La.1982).” (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dial
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.