State v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
September 2006
most recently cited
15 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Griffin v. Texas · 416 So. 2d 528 - State v. Ratcliff · State v. Knighton · State v. Wry
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 712 commits a motion for continuance to the sound discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a showing of abuse and specific prejudice. State v. Gaskin, 412 So.2d 1007 (La.1982); State v. Ashley, 569 So.2d 276 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1990), writ denied, 575 So.2d 387 (La.1991). This specific prejudice requirement will only be disregarded where the time allowed defense counsel to prepare is so minimal that the "fairness" of the proceeding is questionable. State v. Jones, 395 So.2d 751 (La.1981); State v. Ashley, supra . The reasonableness of discretion issue turns primarily upon the circumstances of the particular case. State v. Simpson, 403 So.2d 1214 (La.1981); State v. Ashley, supra . ( Knighton citation omitted) State v. Smith, 25,841 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/23/94), 632 So.2d 887, 890 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A motion for a continuance based upon the absence of a witness must state: (1) Facts to which the absent witness is expected to testify, showing the materiality of the testimony and the necessity for the presence of the witness at the trial; (2) Facts and circumstances showing a probability that the witness will be available at the time to which the trial is deferred; and (3) Facts showing due diligence used in an effort to procure attendance of the witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“of the proceeding is questionable. State v. Jones, 395 So.2d 751 (La.1981); State v. Ashley, supra . The reasonableness of discretion issue turns primarily upon the circumstances of the particular case. State v. Simpson, 403 So.2d 1214 (La.1981); State v. Ashley, supra . ( Knighton citation omitted) State v. Smith, 25,841 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/23/94), 632 So.2d 887, 890 . The importance of the”
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.