637 So. 2d 814 - State v. Babin’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2016
1 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 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
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall · State v. Mims · 420 So. 2d 1126 - State v. Graham · Martell v. United States
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“3. The defendant shall give notice of the crime for. which he was convicted, his name and address to: (a)-To people to [sic] who live within a one (1) mile radius where the defendant will reside upon release on probation; (b) The superintendent of the school district where the defendant will reside, who shall notify the principal of whichever schools the superintendent thinks should be notified of the defendant’s name, address and the crime for which he was convicted. 4. The defendant shall give notice of the crime for which he was convicted, his name, [and] his address by mail to all people residing within the designated area, within thirty (30) days of sentencing or within thirty (30) days of setting up residency in the locale where the defendant plans to have his domicile, and the notice shall be published on two separate days within this thirty (30) days [sic] period of time, without cost to the State, in the official journal of the governing authority of the parish where the defendant plans to reside.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[b]ecause the provisions of article 895 H were not in effect at the time of the commission of defendant's crime, their application to defendant would be [a] ... violation of the ex post facto provisions in the U.S. and Louisiana Constitutions.”
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.