Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 483 SO2D 596 - State v. Groth

State v. Groth’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
March 2014
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2014

13 state decisions

601986199020002010decided

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. Shushan · 347 So. 2d 1132 - State v. Driever · 391 So. 2d 813 - State v. Devito · 426 So. 2d 613 - State v. Amarena · Alexander & Alexander, Inc. v. State ex rel. Division of Administration

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

  1. “1) The defendant at any time, with the purpose to avoid detection, apprehension or prosecution, flees from the state, is outside the state, or is absent from his usual place of abode within the state; or 2) The defendant cannot be tried because of insanity or because his presence for trial cannot be obtained by legal process, or for any other cause beyond the control of the state; or 3) The defendant fails to appear at any proceeding pursuant to actual notice, proof of which appears of record.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “bears the heavy burden of showing that it is excused from trying the accused on a charge later than the period mandated by Article 578.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “during the two-year prescriptive period to bring a defendant back to Louisiana for trial when he is incarcerated in another state, (even if extradition is not allowed), that action would arguably constitute an interruption under La.C.Cr.P. art. 579(A)(2).”
    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.