State v. Funke’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2017
22 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Missouri v. Hunter · United States v. Halper · Department of Revenue of Mont. v. Kurth Ranch · State v. McKettrick · Danner v. Hass
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The determination turns, not on the nature of the underlying proceeding, but on the purpose actually served by the sanction. When a civil sanction, as applied in an individual case, can only be said to serve the twin goals of punishment — deterrence and retribution — then it must fairly be regarded as triggering the protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Conversely, a civil sanction that serves principally a remedial purpose does not subject a defendant to the hazards otherwise safeguarded by the Fifth Amendment’s protection against multiple punishments.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hill · State v. Kocher
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.