Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 472 So. 2d 340 - State v. Tassin

472 So. 2d 340 - State v. Tassin’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently May 2018

9 state decisions

601985199020002010decided

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 Ex Rel. Graffagnino v. King · State v. Duncan · 408 So. 2d 1255 - State v. Dewey · State v. MacDonald

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[i]t is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibilities [sic] of the witnesses. The appellate court should not second guess the credibility determinations of the trier of fact beyond the application of the sufficiency evaluations allowed under the Jackson standard of review.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “As used herein the term "explosive" means ... any ... device that contains any oxidizing and combustible units, or other ingredients, in such proportions, quantities, or packing that ignition by fire, by friction, by concussion, by percussion, or by detonation of the compound, mixture, or device or any part thereof may cause an explosion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A. It shall be unlawful for any person without proper license as required by R.S. 40:1472.1 et seq., knowingly and intentionally to manufacture, possess, or have under his control any bomb. .... D. This Section shall not apply to fireworks possessed within the meaning and contemplation of R.S. 51:650 et seq.”
    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.