MacK v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2024
8 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
Applies 21 U.S.C. § 846 (§ 406 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on United States v. Booker · Chapman v. State of California · Brown v. Ohio · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois · United States v. Wheeler
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Double jeopardy protects against (a) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (b) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and (c) multiple punishments for the same offense .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. FRANCIS v. STATE · POSEY v. STATE“Two separate sovereigns sought to prosecute Mack for conduct violating laws in each jurisdiction. The doctrine of dual sovereignty applies, and the State prosecution is not barred by double jeopardy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. State“Mack claims that dual sovereignty does not apply here because his actions in killing the victims were chargeable as murder in state court, but could not be charged as murder in federal court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Miller 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.