Stevenson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2017
22 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 Strickland v. Washington · Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · Missouri v. Hunter · Cherry v. State
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Petitioner claims under State v. Hollman, 232 S.C. 489 , 102 S.E.2d 873 (1958) his convictions for ABHAN and resisting arrest violate the prohibition against multiple punishments under the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Hollman Court held convictions for resisting arrest and ABHAN constituted a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Court stated the assault on the officer was “the essence of, and inseparable from, the resistance of arrest.” In Hollman , the Court went beyond the required elements of each offense and considered the actual proof offered at trial in reaching its decision. Therefore, the Hollman Court did not strictly apply the Blockburger “same elements” test. However, because the Hollman court applied the incorrect analysis, we expressly overrule its holding. Instead, under the Blockburger “same elements” test, convictions for both ABHAN and resisting arrest do not constitute a double jeopardy violation. ABHAN requires proof of an unlawful act of violent injury to the person of another, accompanied by circumstances of aggravation. State v. Easler, supra [ 327 S.C. 121 , 489 S.E.2d 617 (1997) ]; State v. Jones, 133 S.C. 167 , 130 S.E. 747 (1925), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Foust, 325 S.C. 12 , 479 S.E.2d 50 (1996). The offense of resisting arrest requires proof that a person knowingly and wilfully assaulted, beat or wounded a law enforcement officer during an arrest when the person resisting knew or should have known the officer was a law en”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tyndall
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.