Cousins v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably Newton v. State (1977), State v. Frye (1978)
109 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 Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Ashe v. Swenson · Green v. United States · Oregon v. Hass
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Thus, under both federal double jeopardy principles and Maryland merger law, the test for determining the identity of offenses is the required evidence test. If each offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, the offenses are not the same and do not merge. However, if only one offense requires proof of a fact which the other does not, the offenses are deemed the same, and separate sentences for each offense are prohibited.” (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The basic premise for enforcing the prohibition is to prevent the State from making repeated attempts to convict an individual, thereby subjecting him to the hazards of trial, embarrassment, expense, and anxiety as well as enhancing the possibility that even if innocent, he may still be found guilty. In accordance with this premise the United States Supreme Court and this Court have applied certain constitutional guarantees protecting the accused against unwarranted retrial. These guarantees consist of constitutional protection against (1) a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; (2) a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; (3) and multiple punishment for the same offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mason v. State““There is no State constitutional or statutory provision requiring joinder of all charges arising from a single criminal act or episode. Nor do prior Maryland cases reflect any common law right to have joined at one trial all charges arising from a single act or transaction. Finally, nothing in the Maryland Rules of Procedure requires joinder of all charges arising from a single transaction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eccles v. State
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.