Commonwealth v. Studebaker’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002)
Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Elkins v. United States · Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction as defined in section 109 of this title (relating to when prosecution barred by former prosecution for same offense) and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct unless : (i) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other and the law defining each of such offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil; or (Emphasis added) (ii) n/a Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1482, No. 334, § 1, eff. June 6, 1973. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 111.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Instantly, we confront neither a situation involving successive prosecutions for the same offense, nor a situation where the federal prosecution resulted in a conviction.” (p. 344) “Where ... an individual has allegedly committed two separate offenses against the ‘peace and dignity,’ (citations omitted) of two sovereigns, we do not believe that an individual can be heard to argue that he is ‘twice vexed’ or subject to a ‘continuous state of anxiety, insecurity and possible harassment’ when there are two separate prosecutions for separate crimes. Arson and mail fraud are two independent criminal acts, each of which involves different elements of proof and separate volitional conduct on the part of a defendant.” (pp. 344-345)”
1 later decision 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.