Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 So. 2d 1237 - State v. Robertson

511 So. 2d 1237 - State v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
February 2016
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 2016

21 state decisions

1001987199020002010decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Blockburger v. United States · Brown v. Ohio · 445 So. 2d 1198 - State v. Wright · 387 So. 2d 1175 - State v. Steele

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

  1. “If the evidence required to support a finding of guilt of one crime would also have supported conviction of the other, the two are the same offense under a plea of double jeopardy, and a defendant can be placed in jeopardy for only one.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “|4The offenses of distribution of cocaine and conspiracy to distribute cocaine do not contain identical elements. An individual is guilty of distribution of cocaine when he transfers possession or control of the cocaine to his intended recipient. The state must show (1) delivery or physical transfer; (2) guilty knowledge of the controlled dangerous substance at the time of transfer; and (3) the exact identity of the controlled dangerous substance. Conspiracy to distribute cocaine does not require these elements. To find one guilty of conspiracy to distribute cocaine, the state must show that there existed an agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of transferring possession or control of the cocaine to an intended recipient. [[Image here]] In the instant case, the same evidence was not necessary for a conviction of both crimes because the crime of distribution of cocaine was completed after the conspiracy to distribute cocaine. (Internal citations omitted.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “in determining whether double jeopardy exists. In Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), the Supreme Court held 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 an additional fact which the other does not. Louisiana also uses the broader”
    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.