Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 707 SO2D 1374 - State v. King

State v. King’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State v. St. Pierre · 666 So. 2d 387 - Starks v. Universal Life Ins. Co. · Ludwig v. Spruiell · 490 So. 2d 273 - State v. Broussard · 386 So. 2d 707 - Jolivette v. Jolivette

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. “The rights of an accused guaranteed by La. Const. art. 1 sec. 13 cannot be triggered simply because the statute under which a party is pursued provides specific punishments in the event of contempt of the judgment. Indeed, every order issued by a court of this state carries with it the possibility of punishment if a party is found in contempt thereof. See La.R.S. 13:4611.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We agree with Justice Knoll's dissent and find these comments equally applicable in a situation where a petition is filed pursuant to La.R.S. 46:236.1. This matter is purely civil; therefore, the defendant is not entitled to a court appointed attorney.”
    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.