Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 604 So. 2d 71 - State v. Pontiff

604 So. 2d 71 - State v. Pontiff’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably 852 So. 2d 450 - State v. Schexnaider (2003), State v. Anderson (1996)

26 state decisions

140199220002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall · 404 So. 2d 1205 - State v. Campbell · 414 So. 2d 1210 - State v. Howard · 448 So. 2d 645 - State v. Davis

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

  1. “The jury, sitting as the trier of fact, had the distinct opportunity to view each individual witness' demeanor, listen to their respective testimony, and assess credibility. Their firsthand knowledge of the witness' testimony is an immeasurable advantage when compared to our limited review within the four corners of the cold record... Since the record fully supports the jury findings, this court will not engage in reevaluating the credibility of witnesses and reweighing the other evidence adduced at trial.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “‘When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the province of the jury and not that of the appellate court to assess the credibility of witnesses. The appellate court cannot reevaluate credibility of witnesses and then proceed to overturn a factual determination of guilt. Where a trier of fact has made a rational credibility determination, an appellate court cannot disturb it on review.” State v. Pontiff, 604 So.2d 71, 75 (La.App. 3 Cir.1992). (citations omitted).”
    2 later decisions 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.