Clay v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2019
1 federal appellate · 18 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 Brown v. Ohio · Menna v. New York · Launius v. United States · Tucker v. State · Jennings 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]his Court has repeatedly held that the statutory prohibition on multiple punishment of the same act or omission, 21 O.S.1971, § 11, is not violated where the offenses are separate and distinct and require dissimilar proof, even though they arise from the same transaction. Barnhart v. State, Okl.Cr., 518 P.2d 1123 (1974); Kupiec v. State, Okl.Cr., 493 P.2d 444 (1972) and Tucker v. State, Okl.Cr., 481 P.2d 167 (1971). . . . “Additionally, it is clear that offenses committed against different individual victims are not the same for double jeopardy or dual punishment purposes, even though they arise from the same episode or transaction. Wilson v. State, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 604 (1973); Jennings v. State, Okl.Cr., 506 P.2d 931 (1973) and Orcutt v. State, 52 Okl.Cr. 217 , 3 P.2d 912 (1931).” (Emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hoffman v. State · Peacock v. State“[I]t is clear that offenses committed against different individual victims are not the same for double jeopardy or dual punishment purposes, even though they arise from the same episode or transaction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“are not mere means to some other ultimate objective, nor are the offenses included in some other offense, nor are they merely different incidents or facets of some primary offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gregg 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.