998 So. 2d 800 - State v. Baylor’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Defendant was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, which is "the intentional taking or use of a motor vehicle which belongs to another, either without the other's consent, or by means of fraudulent conduct, practices, or representations, but without any intention to deprive the other of the motor vehicle permanently." La.R.S. 14:68.4. In State v. Joseph , 05-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 1/17/06) , 921 So.2d 1060 , the fifth circuit discussed unauthorized use of a motor vehicle as follows: This Court, while acknowledging that there are few published cases interpreting La. R.S. 14:68.4, has found the jurisprudence interpreting La. R.S. 14:68 (prohibiting the unauthorized use of a movable) instructive since the two statutes proscribe the same conduct. See: State v. Varnado , 01-367, p. 4 (La.App. 5th Cir. 9/13/01), 798 So.2d 191 , 193 ; State v. Spencer , 97-811, pp. 6-7 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1/27/98), 707 So.2d 119 , 120. In State v. Bias , 400 So.2d 650 , 652-653 (La.1981), the Louisiana Supreme Court clarified the meaning of La. R.S. 14:68 as follows: A person commits the crime of unauthorized use of a movable when he either takes or uses another's property without the owner's consent or by means of fraudulent practices. [Louisiana Revised Statutes] 14:68, although not requiring that a person act with an intent to deprive the owner permanently of his property, must reasonably be construed to require the existence of fraudulent intent. See: State v. Kelley , 241 La. 224 , ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Loyd

2. “When the issue of sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, the critical inquiry of the reviewing court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the role of the fact finder to weigh the respective credibility of the witness. Therefore, the appellate court should not second-guess the credibility determination of the trier of fact beyond the sufficiency evaluations under the Jackson standard of review.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 216 So. 3d 1128 - State v. Richard

3. “Carjacking is the intentional taking of a motor vehicle, as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), belonging to another person, in the presence of that person, or in the possession of a passenger, or any other person in lawful possession of the motor vehicle, by the use of force or intimidation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bess