Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 329 NW2D 833 - State v. Patch

State v. Patch’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
January 2007
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably Bellcourt v. State (1986), State v. Crocker (1987)

25 state decisions

150198319902000decided

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 State v. Leinweber · State v. Herberg · State v. Malzac · State v. Lindahl · State v. Olson

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “bar[ring] the prosecutor from exaggerating the criminality of the defendant’s conduct by obtaining two convictions for the same offense.” Id. at 837 . We did not discuss whether each purpose constituted a separate element, as Pendleton suggests; rather, we noted that the case law supported the vacation and the state conceded the issue. Id. 9 . Although Schad was decided by a four-member plurality, Justice Scalia agreed with”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The test applied when a defendant requests submission of a lesser offense is a two-part test: whether the lesser offense is necessarily included under Minn. Stat. § 609.04 (1982) and whether the evidence adduced is sufficient to permit the jury rationally to acquit the defendant of the charged offense and convict him of the [lesser] included offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Minn.Stat. § 609.035 generally bars sentencing a defendant more than one time, even to concurrent sentences, for multiple offenses committed against the same victim as part of a single behavioral incident.”
    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.