591 So. 2d 365 - State v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 state decisions

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

1. “A. Carrying a firearm, or dangerous weapon as defined in R.S. 14:2, by a student or nonstudent on school property, at a school sponsored function, or in a firearm-free zone is unlawful and shall be defined as possession of any firearm or dangerous weapon, on one's person, at any time while on a school campus, on school transportation, or at any school sponsored function in a specific designated area including but not limited to athletic competitions, dances, parties, or any extracurricular activities, or within one thousand feet of any school campus. B. For purposes of this Section, the following words have the following meanings: (1) "School" means any elementary, secondary, high school, vocational-technical school, college, or university in this state. (2) "Campus" means all facilities and property within the boundary of the school property. * * * * * * (4) "Nonstudent" means any person not registered and enrolled in that school .... LSA-R.S. 14:19 provides: The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable, when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession; provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this article shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Taylor · State v. Wallace

2. “test when evaluating double jeopardy claims. State v. Willis, 591 So.2d at 372 . The test established in Blockburger is: The applicable rule is that, where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one is whether each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not. Blockburger, 284 U.S. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. at 182 . Under the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 618 So. 2d 949 - State v. LeBlanc

3. “test, if the proof required to support a finding of guilt of one crime would also support conviction of another crime, the prohibition against double jeopardy bars a conviction for more than one crime. State v. Willis, 591 So.2d at 372 . Moreover, the Louisiana Supreme Court recently set forth that the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 618 So. 2d 949 - State v. LeBlanc