State v. Polk’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) The indictment fails to charge an offense which is punishable under a valid statute. (2) The indictment fails to conform to the requirements of Chapters 1 and 2 of Title XIII. In such case the court may permit the district attorney to amend the indictment to correct the defect. 3) The indictment is duplicitous or contains a misjoinder of defendants or offenses. In such case the court may permit the district attorney to sever the indictment into separate counts or separate indictments. (4)The district attorney failed to furnish a sufficient bill of particulars when ordered to do so by the court. In such case the court may overrule the motion if a sufficient bill of particulars is furnished within the delay fixed by the court. (5) A bill of particulars has shown a ground for quashing the indictment under Article 485. (6) Trial for the offense charged would constitute double jeopardy. (7) The time limitation for the institution of prosecution or for the commencement of trial has expired. (8) The court has no jurisdiction of the offense charged. (9) The general venire or the petit jury venire was improperly drawn, selected, or constituted.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 956 So. 2d 684 - State v. Harvey · 942 So. 2d 1176 - State v. Rivers

2. “The State has plenary authority pursuant to La.C.Cr.P. art. 576 to dismiss a charge and then reinstitute prosecution in a case, such as this one, where doing so will not circumvent the statutory time limits for commencing trial under La. C.Cr.P. art. 578. Therefore, considering the circumstances of this case, the trial court abused his discretion in quashing the bill of information.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Hayes · 955 So. 2d 167 - State v. Ross

3. “(1) The information was not signed by the district attorney; or was not properly filed. (2) The offense is not one for which prosecution can be instituted by an information.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 955 So. 2d 167 - State v. Ross · 956 So. 2d 684 - State v. Harvey