Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 A.2d 781 - State v. Pope

State v. Pope’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably State v. Anthony (1980), State v. Mattatall (1992)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 53 state decisions

3501980199020002010decided

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 Blockburger v. United States · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York · State v. Sands · State v. Boudreau

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

  1. ““the applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Id. at 304 , 52 S.Ct. at 182 , 76 L.Ed. at 309 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In this jurisdiction, remoteness is the sole crucial factor to be considered by a trial court when an effort is made to impeach a witness’s credibility by evidence of his prior involvement with the law. State v. O’Brien, 412 A.2d 231 (R.I.1980); State v. Bennett, R.I., 405 A.2d 1181 (1979); State v. Lombardi, 113 R.I. 206 , 319 A.2d 346 (1974). Remoteness is not, however, measured solely by the passage of time, since a trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, can take into account convictions intervening between the past conviction and the crime for which the defendant is being tried. The factfinder has a right to consider whether one who repeatedly refuses to comply with the law is more likely to ignore the obligation of truthfulness than a law-abiding citizen.” R.I., 414 A.2d at 784 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““We permitted [in McGehearty] the defendant to raise the constitutional issue for the first time on appeal and, in doing so, might have left the bar with the impression that we had jettisoned our well-established rules which require the raising of a constitutional issue in the first instance at the trial level and which preclude a challenge to the sufficiency of the charge when a defendant has failed to object to the instruction or to request a different one. Nothing could have been further from our minds.” Id. at 786.”
    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.