694 So. 2d 435 - State v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably 822 So. 2d 141 - State v. Patorno (2002), State v. Austin (2005)
1 federal appellate · 26 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 Schad v. Arizona · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · 660 So. 2d 819 - State v. Marshall · State v. Vergo · 594 So. 2d 1360 - State v. Vergo
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(2) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon a fireman, peace officer, or civilian employee of the Louisiana State Police Crime Laboratory or any other forensic laboratory engaged in the performance of his lawful duties, or when the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm is directly related to the victim's status as a fireman, peace officer, or civilian employee. (3) When the offender has a specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm upon more than one person. * * * (6) When the offender has the specific intent to kill or to inflict great bodily harm while engaged in the distribution, exchange, sale, or purchase, or any attempt thereof, of a controlled dangerous substance listed in Schedules I, II, III, IV, or V of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Austin · State v. Thomas“[a] mistrial may be ordered, and in a jury case the jury dismissed, when ... there is a legal defect in the proceedings which would make any judgment entered upon a verdict reversible as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“I heard no objection yesterday when that was said by me and it would be ridiculous after selecting a jury and hearing this lady's testimony to now ask for the mistrial”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Baker v. State
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.