State v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably State v. Luster (2006), State v. Alston (2005)
62 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
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 885
Relies on Missouri v. Hunter · Jones v. Rath Packing Co. · Perez v. Ledesma · Alexander v. United States · McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Double jeopardy prohibits not only multiple trials for the same offense, but also multiple punishments for the same offense.... The double jeopardy analysis in the context of a single trial is a two part process. First, the charges must arise out of the same act or transaction. Second, it must be determined whether the charged crimes are the same offense. Multiple punishments are forbidden only if both conditions are met.... The defendant on appeal bears the burden of proving that the prosecutions are for the same offense in law and fact.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[A]ll that is required is that the evidence have relevance, and the fact that ambiguities or explanations may exist which tend to rebut an inference of guilt does not render evidence of flight inadmissible but simply constitutes a factor for the jury's consideration.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[d]ouble jeopardy prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense in the context of a single trial... distinct repetitions of a prohibited act, however closely they may follow each other... may be punished as separate crimes without offending the double jeopardy clause.... The same transaction, in other words, may constitute separate and distinct crimes where it is susceptible of separation into parts, each of which in itself constitutes a completed offense.... [ T ] he test is not whether the criminal intent is one and the same and inspiring the whole transaction, but whether separate acts have been committed with the requisite criminal intent and are such as are made punishable by the [ statute ].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
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.