Wagner v. Edmondson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ . . we note that it has been held that the test concerning whether a single transaction may constitute two separate and distinct offenses is whether the same evidence is required to sustain each charge, and if not, the fact that both charges relate to and grow out of one transaction does not make a single offense where two distinct offenses are defined by statute. See Hunt v. Hudspeth, 111 F. 2d 42 . See also McDonald v. Hudspeth, 129 F. 2d 196 , certiorari denied 317 U. S. 665 , 87 L. ed. 535, 63 S. Ct. 75 , rehearing denied 317 U. S. 709 , 87 L. ed. 565, 63 S. Ct. 157 , and Tiller v. Hudspeth, 131 F. 2d 188 , holding that where the same transaction constitutes a violation of two statutory provisions, the test to be applied in determining whether there are two offenses is whether each required proof of a fact which the other does not.” ( 178 Kan. 554 at 555-6 .)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Davis v. State · Coverly v. State