State v. Steele’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 1987
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Sepulvado · 384 So. 2d 355 - State v. Bonanno · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · State v. Smith · 406 So. 2d 550 - State v. Bourgeois
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[5,6] The sentencing court’s reasons for imposition of sentence are an important aid when we review a sentence for excessiveness. State v. Bourgeois, 406 So.2d 550 (La.1981). LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 894.1 provides criteria for consideration in determining whether a sentence is excessive. State v. Sepulvado [ 367 So.2d 762 (La.1979)], supra. Even though the sentencing court need not articulate every aggravating and mitigating circumstance contained in Article 894.1, the record must reflect that adequate consideration was given to these codal guidelines in particularizing the defendant’s sentence. State v. Smith, 433 So.2d 688 (La.1983). Where the record clearly illuminates the sentencing choice, a reviewing court should not disturb the sentence. State v. Smith, 430 So.2d 31 (La.1983).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Dozier
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.