Lopez v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably People v. Abiodun (2005), United States v. Hinkle (2016)
6 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 802 (§ 102 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 21 U.S.C. § 841 (§ 401 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Missouri v. Hunter · Ball v. United States · Ex parte Lange
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.
“[n]o person shall . . . be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. . . .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Cavazos · In Re Ra“[Section 481.112(a) ], however, cannot be turned on its head to allow several “delivery” convictions where there is only one single sale of one drug. Therefore, we hold that the offer to sell and the possession of drugs to complete that specific sale is one single offense. Although the State may charge the offense as being committed in either of these modes, it cannot obtain two convictions for the same sale under Section 481.112(a). The entry of two convictions in this case violates double jeopardy under the Blockburger test because the steps in this single drug transaction were all “the result of the original impulse,” and therefore each step was not a “new bargain.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Guerrero v. State“whether the individual acts are prohibited, or the course of action which they constitute. If the former, then each act is punished separately.... If the latter, there can be but one penalty. Under Blockburger, this test hinges on the legislative intent of the statute at issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Guerrero v. State
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.