Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 662 SW2D 595 - Kalish v. State

Kalish v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
November 2004
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 2004

15 state decisions

120198319902000decided

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 Ex Parte McWilliams · Gorman v. State · Ordunez v. Bean · Dickey v. State · Davis 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““If a motion to set aside an indictment, ... for failure to provide a speedy trial as required by Article 32A.02 is sustained, the court shall discharge the defendant. A discharge under this article is a bar to any further prosecution for the offense discharged or for any other offense arising out of the same transaction.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “... there may be any number of distinct [statutory] crimes in a single criminal transaction. This comes from the fact that, the words of our language being limited, while the transactions of life may almost be termed infinite in variety, and the lines to be drawn around specific offenses being necessarily incomparably more limited than the words, it is impossible that there should be an exact outline of crime whose circumference shall exactly coincide with every criminal transaction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Such inclusive language used by the Legislature will not allow a construction that what it really intended was to limit “same transaction” to offenses of like degree.”
    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.