700 So. 2d 1177 - State v. Jack’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
April 2007
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. House · 468 So. 2d 1154 - State v. Lilly · 653 So. 2d 526 - State v. Maxie · 566 So. 2d 981 - State v. Jones · State v. Williams
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No direct evidence exists to prove the requisite specific intent to distribute marijuana; thus, circumstantial evidence, consisting of inferential reasoning, can support the element of specific intent beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Broussard, 560 So.2d 694 (La.App. 3 Cir.), writ denied, 566 So.2d 981 (La. 1990). This circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience. State v. Starr, 28-934 (La.App. 2 Cir. 12/11/96) ; 685 So.2d 424 .”
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.