Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 527 SO2D 505 - State v. Panepinto

State v. Panepinto’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

2 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Liotta v. National Forge Co. · 376 So. 2d 1240 - State v. Gainey · State v. Marcal · 337 So. 2d 461 - State v. Hollingsworth · State v. Meunier

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.

  1. “Since the defendant had `open file' discovery, he was sufficiently notified of the `nature and cause of the accusation against him.' La. Const. Art. I, § 13, and the indictment did not violate his right to adequately prepare for trial.”
    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.