State v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 2014
3 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 357 So. 2d 1121 - State v. Murray · State v. Garnier · State v. Bienvenu · State v. Dudek · 432 So. 2d 1186 - State v. Tanner
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion may be used to suppress evidence taken by means of an “unconstitutional search and seizure”, La.C.Cr.P. Art. 703(A), but our procedure does not authorize the use of the motion to suppress to test the admissibility of evidence constitutionally seized. Questions of admissibility, relevance, weight and eonnexity are properly resolved at trial on the merits. State v. Gamier, 261 La. 802 , 261 So.2d 221 (1972). See also State v. Murray, 357 So.2d 1121 (La. 1978), and compare, State v. Bienvenu, 260 La. 1023 , 258 So.2d 72 (1972), footnote 1, and State v. Dudek, 263 La. 258 , 268 So.2d 217 (1972).”
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.