985 So. 2d 722 - State v. Romar’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
May 2018
most recently cited
35 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Marion · 630 So. 2d 1284 - State v. Rome · 439 So. 2d 410 - State v. Taylor · 391 So. 2d 813 - State v. Devito · 426 So. 2d 613 - State v. Amarena
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the present case, the period of limitation did not begin to run anew until the cause of the interruption no longer existed, i.e., until defendant was finally arrested on the open attachment and appeared in court to dispose of the criminal contempt proceeding. The burden under La.C.Cr.P. art. 579(A)(3) thus falls not on the state to show that defendant had placed himself outside of its control to secure his presence at trial but on defendant and his sureties to avoid the consequences of his failure to appear in court after receiving notice, and one of those consequence, since 1984, is the interruption of the time limits placed on trial.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“does not impose on the state the affirmative duty to search for a defendant who has failed to appear for trial after receiving actual notice.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A. The period of limitation established by Article 578 shall be interrupted if any of the following occur: (1) The defendant at any time, with the purpose to avoid detection, apprehension, or prosecution, flees from the state, is outside the state, or is absent from his usual place of abode within the state; (2) The defendant cannot be tried because of insanity or because his presence for trial cannot be obtained by legal process, or for any other cause beyond the control of the state; (3) The defendant fails to appear at any proceeding pursuant to actual notice, proof of which appears of record. (Emphasis added). B. The periods of limitation established by Article 578 shall commence to run anew from the date the cause of interruption no longer exists.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.