State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Kennedy’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably State v. Gustafson (1996), State v. Johnson (2000)
104 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 18 U.S.C. § 287 · 23 U.S.C. § 408
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Halper · United States v. Dixon · Breed v. Jones
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the State subjected the defendant to separate proceedings; (2) whether the conduct precipitating the separate proceedings consisted of one offense or two offenses; and (3) whether the penalties in each of the proceedings may be considered “punishment” for the purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Nunez · State v. Kirby“New Mexico has a serious problem with drunk drivers, with one of the highest rates in the nation of DWI-related fatalities.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“This constitutional [double jeopardy] protection is intrinsically personal. Its violation can be identified only by assessing the character of the actual sanctions imposed on the individual by the machinery of the state. In making this assessment, the labels “criminar and “civil” are not of paramount importance. It is commonly understood that civil proceedings may advance punitive as well as remedial goals, and, conversely, that both punitive and remedial goals may be served by criminal penalties. ... To that end, the determination whether a given civil sanction constitutes punishment in the relevant sense requires a particularized assessment of the penalty imposed and the purposes that the penalty may fairly be said to serve. Simply put, a civil as well as criminal sanction constitutes punishment when the sanction as applied in the individual case serves the goals of punishment. These goals are familiar. We have recognized in other contexts that punishment serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence.... From these premises, it follows that a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment.... We therefore hold that under the Double Jeopardy Clause a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent, that the second sanction may not fairly be characterize”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kane 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.