Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 535 SW2D 537 - State v. Carter

State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
June 1993
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently June 1993

17 state decisions

80197619801990decided

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 State v. Toombs · State v. Richardson · State v. Chambers · State v. Moton · State v. Parsons

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

  1. “". . . This means that a defendant can be charged with and convicted of several offenses which arise from the same transaction, incident or set of facts, without violation of double jeopardy. State v. Moton, 476 S.W.2d 785, 788 [3, 4] (Mo.1972). Indeed, the very same act can support multiple convictions without infringement of double jeopardy so long as the convictions rest on separate offenses. State v. Whitley, 382 S.W.2d 665, 666 [2, 3] (Mo.1964). "The double jeopardy doctrine is directed to the identity of the offense, and not to the act. State v. Toombs, 326 Mo. 981 , 34 S.W.2d 61, 64 [3] (1930). It forbids the State from piecemeal prosecution of an offense. In the determination of whether several charges from one act or transaction are identical, our courts look to `whether each offense necessitates proof of an essential fact or element not required by the other'; if so, there is no identity of offense. State v. Chambers, 524 S.W.2d 826, 829 [1, 2] (Mo. banc 1975)." State v. Carter, supra.”
    4 later decisions 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.