State v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2017
6 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.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The concept of ‘common scheme’ appears in several sections of Montana’s Criminal Code. Section 45-2-101(7), MCA, defines the term as a series of acts or omissions ‘motivated by a purpose to accomplish a single criminal objective or by a common purpose or plan which results in the repeated commission of the same offense or affects the same person or same persons or the property thereof. ’ This definition, as applied in the bad check, deceptive practices, and forgery statutes, imposes a higher penalty for offenses commited pursuant to an elaborate plan, in contrast to the penalties imposed for the single fraudulent act. See Annotator’s Note, Montana Criminal Code 1973 Annot., (1980 rev. ed.). See also sections 45-6-316, 45-6-317 and 45-6-31.5, MCA.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Renz
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.