Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 SW2D 266 - State v. McCrary

State v. McCrary’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
4
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Antwine (1987), State v. Lingar (1987)

1 federal appellate · 85 state decisions

4201981199020002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Mapp v. Ohio · Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States · Ashe v. Swenson

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

  1. “All offenses that are of the same or similar character or based on two or more acts that are part of the same transaction or on two or more acts or transactions that are connected or that constitute parts of a common scheme or plan may be charged in the same indictment or information in separate counts.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The applicable rule is that 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 a fact which the other does not.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “First, the defendant must have an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in the place or thing searched. Second, the expectation of privacy must be reasonable or legitimate. The legitimacy or reasonableness of the expectation is measured by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society.”
    2 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.