People v. Bridges’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably State v. Salamon (2008), 426 So. 2d 963 - Faison v. State (1983)
69 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 · Morissette v. United States · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · People v. Daniels · Holt v. Alleghany Corp.
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"the intent thereby to force the victim or any other person to make any concession or give up anything of value in order to secure a release of a person under the offender's actual or apparent control. . . ."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“[fjor first-degree kidnapping, the prosecution must prove, in addition to movement, that the intent of the defendant is to force the victim to make a concession or give up a thing of value in order to secure release. Circumstantial evidence of such intent may be derived from an examination of the amount and character of the movement surrounding the robbery, taking into account, for example, the time of detention, the distance, any changed environmental factors, whether the commission of the underlying crime and the movement were simultaneous, and the consistency of the defendant’s actions with an independent intent to kidnap. [Emphasis in original.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Swanson““The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Lowe
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.