838 So. 2d 778 - State v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “When a defendant files a motion to quash or other preliminary plea, the running of the periods of limitation established by Article 578 shall be suspended until the ruling of the court thereon; but in no case shall the state have less than one year after the ruling to commence the trial.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Allen · 223 So. 3d 528 - State v. Joseph

2. “For purposes of art. 580, a preliminary plea is any pleading or motion filed by the defense which has the effect of delaying trial. State v. Cranmer , 306 So.2d 698 , 700 (La.1975) ; State v. Elfert , 247 La. 1047 , 175 So.2d 826 , 828 (1965). These pleadings include properly filed motions to quash, motions to suppress, or motions for a continuance, as well as applications for discovery and bills of particulars. State v. Brooks , 505 So.2d 714 , 725 (La.1987) ; State v. Fabacher , 362 So.2d 555 , 556 (La.1978). Joint motions for a continuance fall under the same rule. State v. Jones , 620 So.2d 341 , 342 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993) ( citing State v. Simpson , 506 So.2d 837 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987), writ denied , 512 So.2d 433 (La.1987) ); see also State v. Rome , 93-1221 (La.1/14/94), 630 So.2d 1284 , 1288-89.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 843 So. 2d 1174 - State v. Vincent · State v. Broussard

3. “Although a formal motion may not have been filed on that date, and it is not clear from the record when [present counsel] formally enrolled as counsel for respondent, it is clear that the trial court continued the status conference and arraignment set for that day for purposes of providing respondent with the opportunity to substitute counsel for the missing [prior counsel]. The continuance on that date, solely for purposes of effectuating respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and to accommodate the confusion in the defense caused by [prior counsel’s] baffling disappearance, suspended the running of the time limits because the state’s ability to prosecute the case was actually affected until the matter of representation was settled and respondent again had counsel. Louisiana imposes on a prosecutor the ethical duty to "[m]ake reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel, and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel ...La. State Bar Ass’n Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.8(b) (emphasis added); see also Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct R. 3.8(b). As a matter of that ethical constraint, the state could not push this case forward until the question of respondent's representation by counsel was settled. [The prosecutor] could not have communicated or bargained directly with respondent regarding her open plea offer while he was ostensibly still represented by [prior counsel] althoug”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. State v. Sinclair