Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 352 SO2D 638 - State v. Cox

State v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
March 1993
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1993

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

70197719801990decided

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 Buckley v. Valeo · Ashe v. Swenson · Helvering v. Mitchell · One Lot Emerald Cut Stones One Ring v. United States · United States v. Oppenheimer

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

  1. “The doctrine arguments the traditional double jeopardy protection by incorporating into the Fifth Amendment the idea that an ultimate issue of fact which has been established in defendant's favor in a prior criminal trial cannot be relitigated by the State. ... But for a defendant to successfully raise this issue, he must have been acquitted in a prior criminal prosecution. (Citations omitted)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"No person holding a retail dealer's permit and no servant, agent, or employee of the permittee shall do any of the following acts upon the licensed premises: * * * * * * "(8) Employ or permit females, commonly known as B girls, to solicit patrons for drinks and to accept drinks from patrons and receive therefor any commission or any remuneration in any other way." [2]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “whenever a statute contains an objectionable provision severable from those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of the court to so declare and to maintain the act insofar as it is valid.”
    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.