State v. Cory’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently February 2013 · most notably Swenson v. State (2007), State v. Lora (1973)
47 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 State v. Brown · State v. Campbell · State v. Gauger · State v. Ogden · State v. Borserine
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. . When two offenses axe charged in separate counts of one information the test to be applied is not whether the facts actually proved at trial are used to support the conviction of two offenses, it is whether the necessary elements of proof of the one crime are included in the other.” (p. 530.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(1) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one crime under the laws of this state, the defendant may be prosecuted for each of such crimes. Each of such crimes may be alleged as a separate count in a single complaint, information or indictment. “(2) Upon prosecution for a crime, the defendant may be convicted of either the crime charged or an included crime, but not both. An included crime may be any of the following: “(a) A lesser degree of the same crime; “(b) An attempt to commit the crime charged; “(c) An attempt to commit a lesser degree of the crime charged; or “(d) A crime necessarily proved if the crime charged were proved.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jarrell v. State““One may attempt to commit a burglary without possessing burglary tools. Entrance may be attempted without tools. Further, one may possess burglary tools with the requisite felonious intent but without committing the overt act necessary under K. S. A. 1972 Supp. 21-3301 to attempt a burglary. Thus, each is an offense requiring proof of an element not necessary in the other, and neither is a lesser degree of the other offense charged. (See People v. Szymezak, 116 Ill. App. 2d 384 , 253 N. E. 2d 894 , and 2 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, §443, p. 65.). . . .” (p. 531.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Woods
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.