State v. Anil’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 state decisions

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 38 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.” Blockberger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182 , 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ballard · State v. Ahmadjian

2. ““no fixed rule with respect to disclosure is justifiable. The problem is one that calls for balancing the public interest in protecting the flow of information against the individual’s right to prepare his [or her] defense. Whether a proper balance renders nondisclosure erroneous must depend on the particular circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the crime charged, the possible defenses, the possible significance of the informer’s testimony, and other relevant factors.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Souza, 425 A.2d 893, 896 (R.I.) (quoting Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 , 77 S. Ct. 623, 628-29 , 1 L. Ed. 2d 639, 646 (1957)), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 840 , 102 S. Ct. 148 , 70 L. Ed. 2d 123 (1981).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Hernandez

3. ““The test centers on the elements of the two crimes with the goal of ascertaining whether each crime charged, notwithstanding a possible factual overlap, requires proof of an element that the other does not Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 , 785 n.17, 95 S.Ct. 1284 , 1293-94 n. 17, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 , 627 n.17 (1975). Thus, if each crime requires proof of an additional fact, neither an acquittal nor a conviction of one crime immunizes an accused from prosecution and punishment for the other. If, however, the same evidence suffices to establish both crimes, a defendant may not be prosecuted a second time nor be twice punished.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ballard