Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 505 SW2D 237 - Duchac v. State

Duchac v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 69 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably State v. Black (1975), State v. Matthews (1990)

4 federal appellate · 69 state decisions

19019731980199020002010decided

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 Marable v. State · State v. Hefflin · 5 Smith & H. 364 - Dowdy v. State · Harris v. State · Commonwealth v. Riley

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

  1. “One test of identity of offenses is whether the same evidence is required to prove them. If the same evidence is not required, then the fact that both charges relate to, and grow out of, one transaction, does not make a single offense where two are defined by the statutes.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"In addition, none of the evidence required to prove carrying burglarious instruments is necessary to prove commission of third degree burglary. Therefore, the mere fact that both offenses grew out of a single criminal episode does not make them a single offense in this particular case. This is not to say that under different facts and circumstances that a third degree burglary conviction could not bar a conviction for carrying burglarious instruments. The peculiar facts of each case must be examined to properly ascertain whether the conviction of one would bar the other." 505 S.W.2d at 240 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “arose out of the same transaction and because the same proof made out both offenses.”
    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.