Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 503 So. 2d 1186 - State v. Nolan

503 So. 2d 1186 - State v. Nolan’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
1
states following
May 2010
most recently cited

49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2010 · most notably 663 So. 2d 27 - State v. Silman (1995), State v. Freeman (2001)

49 state decisions

3101987199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Brady v. State of Maryland · United States v. Agurs · State Ex Rel. Graffagnino v. King · State v. Shapiro

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

  1. “`If, at any time, either after conviction or sentence, it shall appear that a person convicted of a felony has previously been convicted of a felony ... the district attorney of the parish in which subsequent conviction was had may file an information accusing the person of a previous conviction.' LSA-R.S. 15:529.1(D) (emphasis added) `When a district attorney knows of a prior felony conviction, undoubtedly the better practice is for him to file the multiple-offender bill (after conviction of the latest crime) before imposition of the sentence which is to be enhanced.' State v. Bell, 324 So.2d 451, 453 (La.1975). In the instant case, the multiple offender bill was taken up after conviction, before sentencing. This assignment of error has no merit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “When the conviction is based on both direct and circumstantial evidence, the reviewing court must resolve any conflict in the direct evidence by viewing that evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. When the direct evidence is thus viewed, the facts established by the direct evidence and the facts reasonably inferred from the circumstantial evidence must be sufficient for a rational juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of every essential element of the crime.”
    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.