State v. Currie’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
2 district · 137 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably 18 Cal. 3d 687 - Davis v. Dennis B. (1976), State v. Churchdale Leasing, Inc. (1989)
2 district · 137 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 Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois · Abbate v. United States · Sealfon v. United States · Hoag v. State of New Jersey · Bridges v. United States
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the emphasis should be on underlying policies rather than technisms. The primary considerations should be fairness and fulfillment of reasonable expectations in the light of the constitutional and common law goals.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In many of our sister states the courts have dealt with situations where the defendant, after having caused death or serious injury through the driving of his car, was first prosecuted by a magistrate or justice of the peace for a motor vehicle offense and then prosecuted for manslaughter or aggravated assault. They have almost invariably held that the second prosecution did not violate any double jeopardy or related principle. [[Image here]] Motor vehicle Act violations are generally tried quickly and informally before local police magistrates who are in some instances not even attorneys at law. The evidential presentation may be very limited and the legal representation may likewise be very limited or entirely absent. The maximum fines and terms of imprisonment are minor in comparison to those fixed for violation of our Crimes Act and indeed they are even much lower than those which may be imposed for a violation of our Disorderly Persons Act. The defendant, if found guilty, may for the most part anticipate the imposition of a modest fine. In the light of these circumstances, the refusal to permit the proceeding before the magistrate to bar subsequent criminal prosecution for the death or the serious injury caused by the defendant is readily comprehensible. The elements of oppression or harassment historically aimed at by the constitutional and common law prohibition are not significantly involved; and permitting the second prosecution would not violate the reasonable expec”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“assures that the State with its great resources will not be permitted to harass and oppress the individual by multiple prosecution or punishment for the same offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.