Ray v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In this cause, each offense with which the appellant was charged required proof of an element that the other did not, even though the offenses originated out of the same transaction or occurrence. There are two separate robberies, thus negating any possible double jeopardy issue. . . . Applying the test enunciated in Blockburger [ v. United States , 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)], we must conclude that the appellant was properly indicted and convicted for two separate and distinct offenses 'notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.' See Iannelli v. United States , 420 U.S. at 785 , 95 S.Ct. at 1293 . We further find that where, as here, the test of Blockburger has been met and the appellant's acts . . . constitute two separate and distinct acts, the double jeopardy clause does not prohibit separate sentences to be served consecutively."”

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