Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 448 So. 2d 731 - State v. Foley

448 So. 2d 731 - State v. Foley’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
May 1989
most recently cited

14 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Edwards v. Arizona · 425 So. 2d 1251 - State v. Telsee · 428 So. 2d 449 - State v. Burkhalter · 412 So. 2d 1313 - State v. Robicheaux

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. “"A. When a defendant has been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor, the court should impose a sentence of imprisonment if: (1) There is an undue risk that during the period of a suspended sentence or probation the defendant will commit another crime; (2) The defendant is in need of correctional treatment or a custodial environment that can be provided most effectively by his commitment to an institution; or (3) A lesser sentence will deprecate the seriousness of the defendant's crime."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"The function of the court-appointed counsel is not to create rights for an accused; but, rather, to advocate the facts favorable to a defendant's opposition and to assert and/or protect those rights granted to the accused by our constitutions and statutory laws. As designated by its name `brief', the document filed by counsel is intended to be a precise and to the point recitation of his client's position under the applicable facts and circumstances of the case. Its purpose is not to raise irrelevant issues and law."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The question of whether an accused's rights are "scrupulously honored" depends on the totality of the circumstances involved in the particular facts of each case. Factors to be considered are the time lapse between the request for counsel and the subsequent interrogation, whether Miranda warnings were given between each separate interrogation, whether waiver of right forms were signed and whether pressures were asserted on the accused by the police between the time he invoked his right to counsel and the subsequent interrogation. State v. Shea, 421 So.2d 200 (La. 1982); State v. McCarty, 421 So.2d 213 (La.1982).”
    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.