Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 556 So. 2d 651 - State v. Ritchie

556 So. 2d 651 - State v. Ritchie’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
2
states following
August 2024
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2024

4 state decisions

301990200020102020decided

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 46 U.S.C. § 2302

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Schneckloth v. Bustamonte · Carroll v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Chambers v. Maroney

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

  1. “"In State v. Denton, 387 So.2d 578 (La. 1980), the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed warrantless searches, the automobile exception to the warrant requirement and the application of that exception to searches of boats. The court stated: `It is well settled that a search conducted without a warrant issued upon probable cause is per se unreasonable under the fourth amendment, subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 , 93 S.Ct. 2041 , 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973); Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 , 91 S.Ct. 2022 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971); State v. Spencer, 374 So.2d 1195 (La.1979); State v. Gordon, 332 So.2d 262 (La.1976). One of these exceptions is the so-called "automobile exception." This exception is based upon the existence of probable cause to search the vehicle and exigent circumstances which render it impractical to secure a warrant. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, supra; Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 , 45 S.Ct. 280 , 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925); State v. Spencer, supra; State v. Gordon, supra. This exception applies equally to a vessel. United States v. Weinrich, 586 F.2d 481 (5th Cir.1978) cert. denied, Blair v. U.S., 440 U.S. 982 , 99 S.Ct. 1792 , 60 L.Ed.2d 243 and 441 U.S. 927 , 99 S.Ct. 2041 , 60 L.Ed.2d 402 (1979).'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[i]n defining the crime charged here in broader terms and in using the term "negligence" rather than "criminal negligence", the legislature obviously intended a different standard for negligent homicide in the statutes dealing with boating than for negligent homicide as included in the criminal code, LSA-R.S. 14:32, which defines negligent homicide as the killing of a human being by criminal negligence. The maximum penalty under the boating statute is substantially less than under the criminal code, one year without hard labor and/or a fine of $1,000 as compared to five years with or with[out] hard labor and/or a fine of $5,000. The lesser penalty is strongly indicative of a legislative intent to proscribe less egregious conduct under the boating statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]ny person who by the operation of any watercraft at an immoderate rate of speed ... shall cause the death of another shall be guilty of the crime of negligent homicide....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.