Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 742 So. 2d 50 - State v. Patterson

742 So. 2d 50 - State v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis

1999

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
June 2005
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Delaware v. Van Arsdall · Yates v. Evatt · 603 So. 2d 731 - State v. Hearold · 391 So. 2d 421 - State v. Gibson · 559 So. 2d 1321 - State v. Wille

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

  1. “A hearsay statement is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. La.Code Evid. art. 801(C); State v. King, 355 So.2d 1305 (La.1978). Hearsay is generally not admissible, unless subject to an exception found in the Code of Evidence or provided for by the legislature. La.Code Evid. art. 802. Two important hearsay exceptions encompass testimony given at trial that is inconsistent with prior statements made by the witness.... Prior inconsistent statements are also considered admissible when used solely to impeach or attack a witness' credibility. La.Code Evid. art. 607 provides a proponent may attack the credibility of a witness through the use of extrinsic evidence which contradicts the witness' testimony, provided that a proper foundation is laid for such extrinsic evidence as provided by La.Code Evid. art. 613. La. Code Evid. art. 613 states that extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is admissible if the proponent fairly directed the witness' attention to the statement, act, or matter alleged, and the witness has been given the opportunity to admit the fact and has failed distinctly to do so. La.Code Evid. art. 613; State v. Smith, 687 So.2d 529 (La. App. 3 Cir.1996); State v. Roy, 502 So.2d 265, 268 (La.App. 3 Cir.1987).”
    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.