State v. Love’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
March 2006
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Batson v. Kentucky · Powers v. Ohio · Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. · 588 So. 2d 116 - State v. Velez · 536 So. 2d 671 - State v. Rexrode
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.
“The fact that a prospective juror is acquainted with a party named in La. C.Cr.P. Art. 797(3) is not in itself grounds for a challenge for cause. The facts must reasonably lead to the conclusion that the relationship would influ ence the juror in arriving at a verdict. A challenge for cause should be granted even if the juror declares an ability to remain impartial when the juror’s responses reveal facts from which bias, prejudice, or impartiality may be reasonably implied. The trial judge is afforded wide discretion in ruling on a challenge for cause, and the ruling should not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Rexrode, 536 So.2d 671, at 673 (La.App. 3d Cir.1988).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Harris
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.