583 So. 2d 520 - State v. Prater’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 2014
9 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 Garrison v. State of Louisiana · State v. Sepulvado · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos · 433 So. 2d 104 - State v. Square · 416 So. 2d 528 - State v. Ratcliff
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In the present case, defendant seeks recusal of the trial judge as a result of defendant's own conduct. The only Louisiana case dealing with a situation similar to this was State v. Garrison , 244 La. 787 , 154 So.2d 400 (1963), reversed on other grounds, 379 U.S. 64 , 85 S.Ct. 209 , 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). In Garrison , prior to his trial on charges of criminal defamation, the defendant had issued a press release critical of all Louisiana judges. Defendant then filed a motion to recuse the presiding judge which was ultimately denied. In a Federal case against the same defendant, [United States] v. Garrison , 340 F. Supp. 952 (E.D.La. 1972), defendant again sought recusal of the trial judge based upon defendant's press release critical of the court's ruling against him in another case. The Federal court in [United States] v. Garrison , denied defendant's motion because to grant the recusal motion would allow any defendant to get rid of a particular judge based upon defendant's conduct in making derogatory statements. "Granting Prater's motion to recuse the trial judge based upon conduct by Mr. Prater would open the doors for any defendant to get rid of a presiding judge by the simple expedient of making a threat against the judge. A defendant does not have the right to select the judge who will preside over his trial or sentencing."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Witnesses testifying about opinions must establish, to the satisfaction of the court, that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about the subject on which they will testify. La.C.E. art. 702. Expert testimony is admitted because the expert is uniquely skilled at drawing inferences and conclusions, thereby helping the jury better understand the subject of his testimony. The competence of an expert is a question of fact within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his rulings on the qualifications of an expert witness will not be overturned absent manifest error. State v. Davis, 445 So.2d 163 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1984).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“so nearly connected to the charged offense that the prosecution could not accurately present its case without reference to them”
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.