State v. Cottingin’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 530 So. 2d 615 - State v. Everett (1988), 496 So. 2d 1379 - State v. Cottingin (1986)
59 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 State v. Sepulvado · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos · State v. Abercrumbia · Lehigh Valley Railroad Company v. Royal Indemnity Company and Others
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There are two underlying purposes of the codal requirement that the sentencing court articulate the specific reasons based on particular facts and considerations for imposing a sentence. First, it ensures that the sentence is particularized to the defendant. In addition, it aids the reviewing court in the determination of whether the sentence imposed is excessive by providing an actual indication of whether the sentencing court adequately considered the statutory guidelines.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. King · State v. Williams“"`[A] sentence is excessive if it is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the offense. State v. Bonanno, 384 So.2d 355, 358 (La.1980). In determining whether the penalty is grossly disproportionate, the court must consider "the punishment and the crime in light of the harm to society caused by its commission, and determine whether the penalty is so disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock our sense of justice." Id. In reviewing a claim of excessive sentencing, the trial judge is to be afforded wide discretion in the imposition of sentences within statutory limits, and the sentence imposed by him should not be set aside as excessive in the absence of a manifest abuse of his discretion. State v. Abercrumbia, 412 So.2d 1027 (La.1982).' State v. Morgan, 428 So.2d 1215 , at page 1216 (La.1983)." State v. Cottingin, 476 So.2d 1184 , at page 1188 (La.App. 3 Cir.1985).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Act 384 of 1985, effective September 6, 1985, has now amended La.C.Cr.P. Art. 877 to provide that a pre-sentence report shall be made a part of the record if a defendant seeks post-conviction relief on the grounds of excessive sentence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Bennett
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.