State v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably 915 So. 2d 291 - State v. Juniors (2005), 559 So. 2d 1310 - State v. Lee (1990)
47 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 Chapman v. State of California · Upjohn Company v. United States · Fisher v. United States · Clark v. United States · United States v. Testan
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In order to determine if improperly admitted evidence has prejudiced a defendant, this court has adopted the test for harmless error announced in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S.Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). In State v. Gibson, 391 So.2d 421 (La.1980), this court determined the harmless error rule of Chapman used by the federal courts was `the standard most compatible with this Court's view of its own criminal appellate jurisdiction.' Gibson, supra . In Gibson the court was concerned with prejudice suffered by the defendant due to the introduction of evidence which had been obtained through an unreasonable search and seizure. The introduction of the evidence was found to be harmless by application of the Chapman test, i.e., '... whether there is a reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the conviction' and that `the court must be able to declare a belief that (the error) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,' Gibson, supra . (Emphasis added.)"”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““No legal adviser is permitted, whether during or after the termination of his employment as such, unless with his client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him as such legal adviser by or on behalf of his client, or any advice given by him to his client, or any information that he may have gotten by reason of his being such legal adviser.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Fleury · State v. Wooley“(2) Where the representation is sought to further criminal or fraudulent conduct either past, present or future. See e.g., In Re Grand Jury Proceeding, [ 663 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir.1981), vacated on other grounds, 680 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir.1982)]; In Re Grand Jury Proceedings in the Matter of Fine, 641 F.2d 199 (5th Cir. 1981); [ State v.] Johns, [ 209 La. 244 , 24 So.2d 462 (1946)]; State v. Childers, 196 La. 554 , 199 So. 640 (1940); Succession of Bonner, 192 La. 299 , 187 So. 801 (1939). Here the emphasis should be placed on the client's actions, since it is the client's right which is prejudiced. McCormick on Evidence, § 89 (Cleary ed. 3rd). Unilateral acts by the attorney while perhaps constituting violations of criminal law and/or ethical canons generally cannot be held to abrogate the client's privilege.”
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.