692 So. 2d 609 - State v. Romero’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In Romero, the court stated: It is well settled law that these legislative extensions discussed here are retroactive. In State v. Adkisson, 602 So.2d 718 (La.1992), the Louisiana Supreme Court recognized that the Legislature could amend La.Code Crim.P. art. 573 and extend the time limit within which the state could institute prosecution, but only as long as the amendment came into effect before the statute of limitations accrued. Id. at 719 . In cases arising after Adkisson , the amendment of La.Code Crim.P. art. 573, and enactment of La.Code Crim.P. art. 571.1, the courts have had to calculate when the statute of limitation accrues and if the changes in the law have extended the time within which the state may institute prosecution. See, e.g. State v. Hughes, 94-1364 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/28/94) ; 648 So.2d 490 , writ denied, 95-255 (La.3/24/95), 651 So.2d 292 ; State v. Farris, 95-570 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/16/95) , 666 So.2d 337 . In State v. Ferrie, 243 La. 416 , 144 So.2d 380, 384 (1962), the Louisiana Supreme Court stated as follows: [I]n the absence of a statute of limitations, the State retains the right to prosecute for crimes indefinitely. But when a right of grace has been extended the State relinquishes the right to prosecute once the statute of limitations has run; until it does run, the State’s right to prosecute is re tained and may be extended at the will of the state.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. D.T. · 998 So. 2d 1258 - State v. DT