Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 485 SO2D 212 - State v. Joles

State v. Joles’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
March 2013
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2013

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 371

Relies on Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division · Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas · Cohen v. United States · United States v. Barnes · United States v. Pennell

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

  1. “A. Criminal conspiracy is the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime; provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement or combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination. If the intended basic crime has been consummated, the conspirators may be tried for either the conspiracy or the completed offense, and a conviction for one shall not bar prosecution for the other.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The clear purpose of LSA-R.S. 14:26 is to criminalize the conduct of two or more persons who intend a criminal act and as a result of that intention—manifested as an agreement or combination—one of these does something in furtherance of the intended criminal act.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “requires criminal intent in the mind [sic] of at least two persons....”
    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.