Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 MD 235 - State v. Jones

State v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
15
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Artway v. Attorney General of New Jersey (1996), State v. Gustafson (1996)

2 federal appellate · 72 state decisions — followed in 15 states

4501995200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 287

Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Halper · Austin v. United States · United States Marcus v. Hess

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

  1. “From the licensee's perspective, it is certainly true that suspension or revocation of a license may feel like `punishment.' A licensing system's ultimate goal, however, is to prevent unscrupulous or incompetent persons from engaging in the licensed activity. To this end, revocation or suspension of a license clearly prevents a wrongdoer from further engaging in the licensed activity, at least temporarily.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “since neither party contends that the administrative suspension of Jones's license constituted a ‘prosecution,' the imposition of criminal sanctions against Jones for driving while intoxicated violates the Double Jeopardy Clause only if it constitutes a second punishment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In Halper , the Supreme Court examined a statute that served both punitive and remedial goals and determined that if the remedial goals by themselves justified the sanction imposed, then the statute did not impose a “punishment” for purposes of double jeopardy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.