State v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Second degree battery is a battery committed without the consent of the victim when the offender intentionally inflicts serious bodily injury. For purposes of this article, serious bodily injury means bodily injury which involves unconsciousness, extreme physical pain or protracted and obvious disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty, or a substantial risk of death.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Vidaurri · 258 So. 3d 134 - State v. Bibbins

2. “In State v. Hernandez , 96-0115 (La.App. 4 Cir. 12/18/96) , 686 So.2d 92 , the court upheld the defendant's conviction for second degree battery when the victim's injuries consisted of a cut to her right eye and nose area, a cut on her shoulder and a cut on her finger. The victim testified the injuries burned. In State v. Accardo , 466 So.2d 549 (La.App. 5 Cir.1985), writ denied , 468 So.2d 1204 (La.1985), the defendant, a twenty-one year old male struck a seventeen year old female on the head with either his fist or a blackjack. The blow caused pain and swelling to the victim's head. The court found the evidence was sufficient to establish the victim suffered serious bodily injury within the meaning of the second degree battery statute even though the victim did not lose consciousness and she did not testify she was in extreme physical pain. .... In [ State v. ] Young , 00-1437 [sic], [ (La. 11/28/01) ], 800 So.2d 847 , [ aff'd in part , 00-1437 (La. 11/28/01), 800 So.2d 847 ,] the supreme court affirmed a jury verdict finding the jury could reasonably have concluded the defendant intended to inflict serious bodily injury when he choked the victim. The victim testified he coughed frequently, cleared his throat and had trouble talking. The court found the State proved the defendant intended to cause "impairment of the function of a bodily member."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 259 So. 3d 1133 - State v. Louis

3. “through the victim's medical records which reflected dislocated jaw for which the victim received various pain medications, underwent surgery to repair the injury, and experienced pain. Additionally, the victim was unable to chew or bite down for several weeks following the incident. In the instant matter, Mr. McGuire testified that Mr. Bibbins”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 258 So. 3d 134 - State v. Bibbins