McHugh v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently December 2003 · most notably 96 Wis. 2d 48 - State v. Rabe (1980), Ex Parte Rathmell (1986)
33 state decisions — followed in 10 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
Relies on The People v. Allen · State v. Fredlund · Lawrence v. Commonwealth · State v. Bacom · Fleming v. Commonwealth
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Double jeopardy applies to the offense, not the act causing the criminal offense. The gist of this offense is the unlawful homicide of which there were two. There is an offense for each unlawful homicide. It is not difficult to imagine a case where a defendant might by criminal negligence cause an explosion which would annihilate a number of persons. Great difficulty might arise on proving the actual death of one particular individual, yet it would be a travesty on justice to say that the wrongdoer could not then be again arraigned for the criminal killing of some other named victim. In the two imaginary cases the evidence would be different thereby observing the distinction noted and discussed in Driggers v. State, 137 Fla. 182 , 188 So. 118 and other cases cited there. "One of the tests often required by this and other courts is whether the evidence will be the same in each prosecution. "It is well to point out here that in addition to the difference in identity of the victims the statute requires different proof in other respects. * * *"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a subsequent prosecution of the defendant on a charge of manslaughter for killing the other boy by operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The Court held that double jeopardy applies to the offense, not the act causing the offense. The Supreme Court, in its opinion, said:”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In one case the state was required to prove culpable negligence. Intoxication, instead of culpable negligence is required in the other.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hanemann 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.