Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 692 SO2D 1350 - State v. Whins

State v. Whins’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2014

11 state decisions

60199720002010decided

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 · Golden Pacific Bancorp v. United States · Swint v. Chambers County Commission · 277 So. 2d 126 - State v. Prieur · 445 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Wright

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

  1. “Article 821 is the correct vehicle for asserting that the State failed to prove an essential element of the offense. State v. Allen, 440 So.2d 1330 (La.1983). This article tracks the language of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), in setting the standard pertaining to motions for post-verdict judgment of acquittal. State v. Smith, 441 So.2d 739 (La.1983); State v. Voorhies, 590 So.2d 776 (La.App. 3d Cir.1991). [footnote omitted]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Any person-who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “does not determine whether another possible hypothesis suggested by the defendant could afford an exculpatory explanation of the events; rather, ... the court determines whether the possible alternative hypothesis is sufficiently reasonable that a rational juror could not have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
    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.