State v. Paoli’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 state decisions

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

1. “(Emphasis added.) This language is clear and unambiguous. Its application is not limited to errors favorable or unfavorable to either the State or a criminal defendant. As set forth in La. Civ.Code art. 9,”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 834 So. 2d 1170 - State v. Davis · 849 So. 2d 566 - State v. Brown

2. “|7Although State v. Williams, 00-1725 (La.11/28/01), 800 So.2d 790 , arguably cast some doubt upon the reasoning in State v. Fraser, 484 So.2d 122 (La.1986), it does not overrule Fraser and I do not interpret Williams as applicable to sentencing errors of a type different than those subject to automatic correction under La. R.S. 15:301.1.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 829 So. 2d 625 - State v. Major

3. “[t]he defendant's pleas were not invalid for use ... simply because the court did not give him a separate Boykin hearing on each charge when they were entered on the same day.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 882 So. 2d 724 - State v. Brooks