State v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 44 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[A] statute that is multi-purposed and written with many alternatives, or is vague and unspecific, may have many meanings and a wide range of deterrent possibilities.... It therefore makes more sense to ascertain the operation and deterrent purposes of such statutes for double jeopardy purposes by determining the elements — the legal theory — that constitute the criminal causes of action in the ease at hand.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. LeFebre · State v. Franco

2. “showing [ ] contrary legislative intent as evidenced by the “ ‘language, history and subject of the statutes},]’ ” by differences in the particular evil addressed by each statute, by a showing that the statutes are usually violated together, by comparison of the punishment inflicted for violating each statute, and by other relevant factors.”

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

3. “`The doctrine of fundamental error * * * will be invoked by an appellate court only when the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or when the court considers it necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice.'”

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