Kokenes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 66 Ill. 2d 551 - People v. King (1977), Richardson v. State (1999)
2 federal appellate · 82 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 Brown v. State of Mississippi · Mack v. State · State v. Elder · Kruger v. State · Jackson v. State
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`When the facts constitute two or more offences....'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It does not follow, however, that a defendant may be convicted for committing a robbery and committing a robbery while armed, where the same identical robbery is involved. . . . “The offenses here involved are in the same category. The same robbery is involved in both, but in one the offense is aggravated by the fact that the defendant was armed with a deadly weapon. If the robbery be established, but it is not proven that he was armed, there should be a conviction for robbery. If the robbery is established and that he was armed, there should be a conviction under the statute in question. Guilt under the latter necessarily implies that the defendant is guilty of the robbery. The judgment should have been for the greater offense. The court entered judgment and sentenced the defendant under both counts; the sentences to run concurrently, however. This was error . . . -” 1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In that case, by way of dicta, we stated that a defendant could not be convicted upon two counts if one was necessarily included in the other. We further commented that the judgment should have been guilty upon the count charging the greater offense . We acknowledge that the State cannot split up one crime and prosecute it in parts; but we are not here concerned with that situation. Rather, the offense charged in one count was necessarily included in the offense charged in the other. We do not perceive why the affidavit contained both counts, since only the greater count was required to authorize the giving of instructions upon both crimes and a conviction upon either”.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.