State v. Roleson’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 1989
11 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
Relies on Blockburger v. United States · James Graham v. State of West Virginia · Badders v. United States · United States v. Daugherty · Snow
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It will not be amiss to observe here that if there be several counts in an indictment for offenses different, but not `positively repugnant,' the practice is to sentence on the count charging the offense of the highest grade; and where there is a good count and a bad count, and a general verdict of guilty, a valid judgment can be entered on the verdict, which is presumed to have been entered on the good count. State v. Dugan, 65 N.J.L. 65 ( Sup. Ct. 1900), affirmed 65 N.J.L. 684 ( E. & A. 1910); State v. Friedman, 98 N.J.L. 577 ( E. & A. 1923). A general conviction is sustainable if there be a single good count in the indictment. State v. Huggins, 84 N.J.L. 254 ( E. & A. 1913); State v. Dunlap, 103 N.J.L. 209 ( Sup. Ct. 1927). And, although the question has evoked controversy, it has been held that an indictment may, by separate counts, charge separate and distinct offenses arising out of the one criminal transaction, each carrying its own penalty. State v. Byra, 128 N.J.L. 429 ( Sup. Ct. 1942), affirmed 129 N.J.L. 384 ( E. & A. 1943).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It may be that the Legislature has overlooked cumulative sentences of this particular class in relation to the basic minimum-maximum sentence policy. There would seem to be no discernible ground for excluding from this beneficent policy multiple successive sentences for offenses having a statutory maximum of one year. But that is a question for the Legislature. Supplying a casus omissus is not within the judicial province. [ Ibid. ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.