State v. Didier’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably 387 So. 2d 1175 - State v. Steele (1980), 392 So. 2d 651 - State v. Knowles (1980)
105 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · Waller v. Florida
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Double jeopardy exists in a second trial only when the charge in that trial is: (1) Identical with or a different grade of the same offense for which the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial, whether or not a responsive verdict could have been rendered in the first trial as to the charge in the second trial; or (2) Based on a part of a continuous offense for which offense the defendant was in jeopardy in the first trial.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage“". . . the defendant's malfeasance consisted of his aiding and abetting the robbery-theft by failing to prevent it, to apprehend the participants, or to report the crime. This is the identical conduct which forms the evidence of the essential element to convict the defendant of the present robbery-theft through his so aiding and abetting it. Where the gravamen of the second offense is essentially included within the offense for which first tried, the second prosecution is barred because of the former jeopardy. State v. Bonfanti, 262 La. 153 , 262 So.2d 504 (decided May 18, 1972); State v. Schneller, 199 La. 811 , 7 So.2d 66 (1942); State v. Roberts, 152 La. 283 , 93 So. 95 (1922)." (Emphasis added).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Pettle · State v. Richmond“(I)dentity of the offenses is an essential element in support of a plea of autre fois. By this is not meant formal, technical, absolute identity; the rule is that there must be only substantial identity, that the evidence necessary to support the second indictment would have been sufficient for the first.”
5 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.