625 So. 2d 190 - State v. Coker’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2018
6 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Graham v. Connor · State Ex Rel. Graffagnino v. King · Southern Railway Co. v. Seaboard Allied Milling Corp. · State v. Richardson
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.
““... the defendant contends that a public official can never be convicted of malfeasance unless a specific criminal statute exists which defines the conduct as malfeasance. In the defendant’s case, he asserts that he cannot be found guilty of malfeasance for maliciously battering helpless prisoners unless a statute exists which requires that ‘law enforcement officials shall ensure the safety, health and well being of all citizens or persons in their presence or custody, and ensure no batteries are committed upon the person who is in their custody or presence.’ Utilizing the defendant’s reasoning, every conceivable function and duty of a public official would have to be specifically included in a prohibitory statute in order to successfully ‘notify’ the official of his potential liability for malfeasance. This is clearly impossible in practice and was obviously not the intent of the legislature when enacting the malfeasance statute. | gin fact, only two offenses are specifically delineated in Louisiana as constituting malfeasance. See La.R.S. 14:134.1 and La. R.S. 14:134.2. In all other cases, the specific duties required to support conviction for malfeasance are derived from other sources. Specific criminal statutes and ordinance have been used to support malfeasance convictions, (citations omitted) ... ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ The oath of office has also been held to independently express certain affirmative duties. In Perez, supra, a judge was found to be under an express affirmative du”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“reserved for those cases in which a public official has blatantly abused the authority of his office and violated the public trust by his direct personal acts or failure to act.”
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.