Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 717 SW2D 33 - Ex Parte Rathmell

Ex Parte Rathmell’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
5
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 75 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Stephens v. State (1991), Ex Parte Tarver (1986)

2 federal appellate · 75 state decisions

3801986199020002010decided

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 · Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · Brown v. Ohio · Green v. United States

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

  1. “The first step in our double jeopardy analysis requires us to decide, as a matter of statutory interpretation, whether appellant's conduct constituted more than one offense. This preliminary determination is necessary because, although this Court is bound by decisions from the United States Supreme Court in interpreting the scope of the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution, the determination of what constitutes an `offense' is largely a matter of state law: `The Legislature has the power to establish and define crimes [and "[f]ew, if any, limitations are imposed by the Double Jeopardy Clause on the legislative power to define offenses.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “It is clear from the language of these statutes that the Legislature has determined and intends that the offense of involuntary manslaughter [as defined in Section 19.05(a)(2) ] is complete with the death of a single individual. Whether the other death in question occurred prior to, contemporaneously with, or subsequent to the death for which the appellant was first tried is of no consequence. Each individual death constitutes a complete and distinct offense (albeit under the terms of the one statute) and as such each death constituted a separate "allowable unit of prosecution."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “No person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty; nor shall a person be again put upon trial for the same offense, after a verdict of not guilty in a court of competent jurisdiction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.