461 So. 2d 492 - State v. Guillory’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 2018
7 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. Klar · 408 So. 2d 1221 - State v. Long · 408 So. 2d 1354 - State v. Messer · 423 So. 2d 1048 - State v. Williams
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The argument shall be confined to evidence admitted, to the lack of evidence, to conclusions of fact that the state or defendant may draw therefrom, and to the law applicable to the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Accepting the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the jury would find this defendant guilty of theft and false imprisonment, offender armed with a dangerous weapon, beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction is based on the direct testimony of Deputy Arceneaux, and other evidence. Other witnesses contradicted Arceneaux. However, when there is conflicting testimony as to a factual matter such as this, the question of the credibility of the witnesses is within the sound discretion of the trier of fact. His factual determinations are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed unless clearly contrary to the evidence. State v. Klar, 400 So.2d 610 (La.1981). The jury's decision to believe Deputy Arceneaux was not clearly contrary to the evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Defendant’s motion, filed on the date of sentencing was not in proper form. It was not verified by affidavit and did not specifically allege the grounds on which it was based. Absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion, the denial of a continuance by the trial judge will not be disturbed. State v. Long, 408 So.2d 1221 (La.1982). There was no abuse of discretion by the trial judge.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hill
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.