610 So. 2d 148 - State v. Malone’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The period of limitation in Art. 578 begins to run anew when the State knows or should know of a criminal defendant's whereabouts, where the defendant can be served or arrested.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 985 So. 2d 722 - State v. Romar · 839 So. 2d 1193 - State v. Buckley

2. “All of the cases cited in the majority opinion were decided prior to the 1984 Legislative amendment adding subsection A(3) to LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 579, and dealt with interruptions under Art. 579A(1) and (2), i.e., flight or hiding by the defendant with the intent to avoid prosecution, or the state's inability to secure his presence for trial by legal process. In those cases, the cause of the interruption was held to no longer exist when the state found out where the defendant was, or failed to take reasonable steps to locate him.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 839 So. 2d 1193 - State v. Buckley

3. “.... ... Although the defendant may have been living on Cortez Street in March of 1990, he failed to show the state knew it at the time. Hindsight is 20/20, and it is easy to now say the state should have known it because the defendant later testifies it is true. The defendant should not unjustly benefit from his failure to appear for trial and to give the arresting officer, his bondsman, and the state his correct address.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 839 So. 2d 1193 - State v. Buckley