Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 448 So. 2d 1363 - State v. Booth

448 So. 2d 1363 - State v. Booth’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 1991
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Pointer v. Texas · Roviaro v. United States · 423 So. 2d 1116 - State v. Ray · 411 So. 2d 415 - State v. Vaccaro

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

  1. “La.C.Cr.P. Art. 914.1 states that the party making the motion for appeal shall request that portion of the proceedings necessary for a review in light of the assignments of error to be urged. La.C. Cr.P. Art. 914.1 states as follows, in pertinent part: A. The party making the motion for appeal shall, at the time the motion is made, request the transcript of that portion of the proceedings necessary, in light of the assignment of errors to be urged. Not later than five days after the motion, the opposing party may designate in writing the transcript of that portion or portions of the proceedings necessary to oppose the appeal. In State v. Augustine, [ 252 La. 983 ], 215 So.2d 634 (1968), the Supreme Court held that only that which is in the record may be reviewed, and it is the obligation of the appellant to bring his appeal property (sic) before the court. In State v. Le-Blanc, 367 So.2d 335 (La.1979), the Supreme Court found that the failure to make contemporaneous objections and to designate parts of the record for appellate review may procedurally bar the right of judicial review. In the present case, the minutes reflect that the defendant did make a contemporaneous objection, but the defendant failed to designate that portion of the record necessary for review. In State v. Oubichon, 422 So.2d 1140 (La.1982), the Supreme Court held again that only that which is in the record may be reviewed by the court, citing State v. Augustine, supra. Art. 1, § 19 of the Louisiana Const”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “into misapprehension about the strength of the state's case.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Amended Answer to Defendant's Motion for Discovery”
    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.