951 So. 2d 124 - State v. Dick’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

57 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “in La. Const. art. VII, § 26(C) is clear and unambiguous, this court would face a dilemma in this case. Should the highest court of the State of Louisiana, the final arbiter of the meaning of a constitutional provision, when faced with an important public policy question, apply a rule of statutory construction, which was itself designed to ascertain and enforce the intent of the framers of the provision, in a manner that would admittedly frustrate the purpose and intent for which the constitutional provision was adopted? [3] The obvious answer to that question, I would submit, is”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of New Orleans v. ASSESSORS'RETIREMENT AND RELIEF FUND · State v. Fussell

2. “§ 308. Ameliorative penalty provisions; retroactivity; amendment of sentence; time limitations [ ip A. (1) The legislature hereby declares that the provisions of Act No. 403 of the 2001 Regular Session of the Legislature provided for more lenient penalty provisions for certain enumerated crimes and that these penalty provisions were to be applied prospectively. (2) The legislature hereby further declares that Act No. 45 of the 2002 First Extraordinary Session of the Legislature revised errors in penalty provisions for certain statutes which were amended by Act No. 403 of the 2001 Regular Session of the Legislature and that these revisions were to be applied retroactively to June 15, 2001, and applied to any crime committed subject to such revised penalties on and after such date. B. In the interest of fairness in sentencing, the legislature hereby further declares that the more lenient penalty provisions provided for in Act No. 403 of the 2001 Regular Session of the Legislature and Act No. 45 of the 2002 First Extraordinary Session of the Legislature shall apply to the class of persons who committed crimes, who were convicted, or who were sentenced according to the following provisions: ... R.S. 15:529.1(A)(l)(b)(ii), ... provided that such application ameliorates the person’s circumstances. C. Such persons shall be entitled to apply to the Louisiana Risk Review Panel pursuant to R.S. 15:574.22.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Mead · 22 So. 3d 1014 - Weaver v. LeBlanc

3. “When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 158 So. 3d 860 - State v. Rouser · 979 So. 2d 579 - Delta Chemical Corp. v. Lynch