Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 781 So. 2d 673 - State v. Williams

781 So. 2d 673 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · 433 So. 2d 688 - State v. Smith · 419 So. 2d 475 - State v. Lanclos · 398 So. 2d 1049 - State v. Jones · State v. Bradford

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

  1. “Except as otherwise provided in this Subsection, the district attorney shall have the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on any issue of fact. The presumption of regularity of judgment shall be sufficient to meet the original burden of proof. If the person claims that any conviction or adjudication of delinquency alleged is invalid, he shall file a written response to the information. A copy of the response shall be served upon the prosecutor. A person claiming that a conviction or adjudication of delinquency alleged in the information was obtained in violation of the Constitutions of Louisiana or of the United States shall set forth his claim, and the factual basis therefor, with particularity in his response to the information. The person shall have the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, on any issue of fact raised by the response. Any challenge to a previous conviction or adjudication of delinquency which is not made before sentence is imposed may not thereafter be raised to attack the sentence. [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “his mandatory five-year sentence under the enhancement provision of LSA-R.S. 14:64.3, and thus, the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant to serve life imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence and a consecutive five years imprisonment without the benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence. The majority's conclusion is erroneous. The majority has failed to provide any authority to support its conclusion that the five-year penalty is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon.”
    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.