Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 765 SO2D 432 - State v. Harris

State v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

52 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 523 So. 2d 1305 - State v. Mussall · State v. Jacobs · 544 So. 2d 1268 - State v. Cashen · State v. Morgan

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

  1. “The fact finder’s discretion will be impinged upon only to the extent necessary to guarantee the fundamental protection of due process of law. [State v.] Mussall, 523 So.2d 1305 [ (La.1988)]; [State v.] Green, 588 So.2d 757 [ (La.App. 4 Cir.1991) ]. “[A] reviewing court is not called upon to decide whether it believes the witnesses or whether the conviction is contrary to the weight of the evidence.” State v. Smith, 600 So.2d 1319, 1324 (La.1992). A factfinder’s credibility decision should not be disturbed unless it is clearly contrary to the evidence. State v. Huckabay, 2000-1082 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/6/02) , 809 So.2d 1093 [, writ denied, 02-703 (La.11/1/02), 828 So.2d 564 ]; State v. Harris, 99-3147 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/31/00) , 765 So.2d 432 [, writ denied, 00-1946 (La.9/21/01), 797 So.2d 60 ].”
    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.