463 So. 2d 1003 - State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 1999
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 448 So. 2d 676 - State v. Captville · 408 So. 2d 1255 - State v. Dewey · 360 So. 2d 500 - State v. Drew
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Louisiana Supreme Court in State v. Godeaux, 378 So.2d 941 (La. 1980), in examining the requirements set forth for the admissibility of demonstrative evidence, stated: To admit demonstrative evidence at trial the law requires that the object be identified. The identification can be visual, that is by testimony at trial that the object is related to the case. It can also be identified by chain of custody, that is by establishing the custody of the object from the time it was seized to the time it was offered into evidence. State v. Paster, 373 So.2d 170 (La.1979); State v. Drew, 360 So.2d 500 (La.1978). A continuous chain of custody is not essential to enable the state to introduce physical evidence as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced was the same as the object originally seized by the officer. State v. Guzman, 362 So.2d 744 (La.1978).”
2 later decisions 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.