Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 705 SW2D 648 - State v. Goins

State v. Goins’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
4
states following
March 2012
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably State v. Adkisson (1994), State v. Denton (1996)

25 state decisions

1701986199020002010decided

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. Hatchett · State v. Black · Patmore v. State · Usary v. State · Grant 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[e]ven if it be conceded that two convictions and two punishments may be had in any case upon separate counts, the practice is not approved, and, certainly it must be clear that the offenses are wholly separate and distinct....” The power of election rests with the state, not the criminal, and the state should not split the transaction so as to subject the accused to cumulative sentences for the same offense or for different offenses involving the same act as a means of pyramiding punishment for two or more cognate offenses.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A defendant may be indicted and convicted only for as many counts of receiving or concealing stolen goods as evidence shows there are separate transactions of receiving or concealing particular goods. Otherwise, the simultaneous possession of goods stolen from more than one person is only one offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[t]he State may not divide a cache of stolen property received or concealed by a defendant by the number of victims of the thefts and thereby obtain that number of indictments absent some other evidence that identified goods have been received or concealed separately.”
    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.