454 So. 2d 131 - State v. Hunter’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2015
15 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 Jackson v. Virginia · State v. Sepulvado · 414 So. 2d 741 - State v. Huizar · 420 So. 2d 1126 - State v. Graham · 414 So. 2d 306 - State v. Fuller
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose. |inB. (1) Mere preparation to commit a crime shall not be sufficient to constitute an attempt; but lying in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime, or searching for the intended victim with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime, shall be sufficient to constitute an attempt to commit the offense intended.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Martin · State v. Prine“The crime of aggravated kidnapping requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to extort something of value either from the victim or some other person in order to secure release. See State v. Moore, 432 So.2d 209 (La. 1983); State v. English, 367 So.2d 815 (La.1979) (appendix); State v. Johnson, 443 So.2d 744 (La.App. 4th Cir.1983); State v. Rodrique, 441 So.2d 1274 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1983). Indeed, the intent to extort is the essential difference between aggravated kidnapping and simple kidnapping. State v. Polk, 376 So.2d 151 (La.1979) (fn. 1); State v. Dupre, 369 So.2d 1303 (La.1979).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... the doing of any of the following acts with the intent thereby to force the victim, or some other person, to give up anything of apparent present or prospective value ... in order to secure a release of the person under the offender's actual or apparent control: ... (3) The imprisoning or forcible secreting of any person.”
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.