State v. PIERCE’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Generally, a single wrongful act should not furnish the foundation of more than one criminal prosecution. “The test to be applied in determining the question of identity of offenses laid in two or more counts of an information is whether each requires proof of a fact which is not required by the others.” (Syl. ff 2, 3.)”

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

2. “"An accusatory pleading in a criminal case may, in order to meet the exigency of proof, charge the commission of the same offense in different ways. In such a situation a conviction can generally be upheld only on one count, the function of the added counts in the pleading being to anticipate and obviate fatal variance between allegations and proof. Thus it is proper to charge by several counts of an information the same offense committed in different ways or by different means to the extent necessary to provide for every possible contingency in the evidence." State v. Pierce, et al., supra, 436-437.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Dorsey · State v. PIERCE

3. ““In the instant case there was but a single act of violence or intimidation, and that act, which was an essential element of the robbery conviction, was also relied on as constituting the separate crime of assault with intent to rob. Under such circumstances, we hold that two separate convictions cannot be carved out of the one act of criminal delinquency. This situation is clearly distinguishable from those cases where a single criminal transaction constitutes two separate offenses because evidence required to prove the two offenses would not be the same. . . .” (p.525.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Lora