Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 A2D 79 - Hackett v. State

Hackett v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 2025

7 state decisions

501990200020102020decided

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 · Garrett v. United States · Whalen v. State · LeCompte v. State

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

  1. “(a) When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than 1 offense, ... The defendant may not ... be convicted of more than one offense if: (1) One offense is included in the other, as defined in subsection (b) of this section; .... (b) ... An offense is so included when: (1) It is established by the proof of the same or less than all the facts required to establish the commission of the offense charged;....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A person is guilty of assault in the first degree when . . ., [w]hile engaged in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit any felony, the person intentionally or recklessly causes serious physical injury to another person . . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “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[.]”
    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.