Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 445 So. 2d 516 - State v. Behn

445 So. 2d 516 - State v. Behn’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2019

6 state decisions

301984199020002010decided

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 New York v. Ferber · 406 So. 2d 1331 - State v. Edwards · 410 So. 2d 689 - State v. Chapman · 395 So. 2d 714 - State v. Stott · 432 So. 2d 1057 - State v. Walker

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

  1. “"A defendant charged with a felony not punishable by death cannot object to his temporary voluntary absence at the proceedings listed in Article 831 if his counsel was present. However, the defendant may always object to his absence at the arraignment or plea to the merits, provided the objection is made before the commencement of trial."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “LSA-R.S. 15:529.1 governs the filing of an habitual offender bill and the effect of a finding by the court that the defendant is an habitual offender. When a defendant is sentenced under this provision of law, only one sentence should be imposed. It is for the new crime only, but the sentence will be more severe than it otherwise would be had the defendant not been adjudged an habitual offender. The habitual offender proceeding is in the nature of an enhancement of penalty, rather than a prosecution for a crime. State v. Stott , 395 So.2d 714 (La.1981) ; State v. Walker , 432 So.2d 1057 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1983).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Evidence not fairly within the scope of the opening statement of the state shall not be admitted in evidence. If the state offers evidence that was inadvertently and in good faith omitted from the opening statement, the court, in its discretion may admit the evidence if it finds that the defendant is not taken by surprise or prejudiced in the preparation of his defense.”
    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.