State v. Black’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably State v. Stephenson (1994), State v. Denton (1996)
4 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
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 · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · Iannelli v. United States
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the episode or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions; (2) whether either of the offenses is a necessarily included offense of the other; (3) whether each of the offenses requires proof of a different element; (4) whether each requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not; and (5) whether each protects different interests or remedies the same harm.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Denton · State v. Adams“[E]ach case requires close and careful analysis of the offenses involved, the statutory definitions of the crimes, the legislative intent and the particular facts and circumstances.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hudson · Greer v. State“the majority rule and clearly the rule in Tennessee is that the “same transaction” test is not the law, rather the proper test is directed to the identity of the offense and has been called the “same evidence” test. Simply stated the test is that: “_ A defendant has been in jeopardy if on the first charge he could have been convicted of the offense charged in the second proceeding. “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. “If there was one act, one intent, and one volition, and the defendant has been tried on a charge based on that act, intent, and volition, no subsequent charge can be based thereon, but there is no identity of offenses if on the trial of one offense proof of some fact is required that is not necessary to be proved in the trial of the other, although some of the same acts may necessarily be proved in the trial of each.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Denton · Keener v. State
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.