May v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

39 state decisions

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

1. “Blockburger being but a rule of statutory construction, the "other double jeopardy matters" alluded to in McWilliams [ Ex parte McWilliams, 634 S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Crim.App.1982)]—" additional protection offered by Ashe [Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 453-454 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , [1199-1200] 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970)] and Nielson" [ In re Nielson, 131 U.S. 176, 188 , 9 S.Ct. 672 , 676, 33 L.Ed. 118 (1889)]—may become very pertinent in a given case. Illinois v. Vitale, supra, 447 U.S. at 420 , 100 S.Ct. at 2267 ; see, e.g., Ex parte Rogers, 632 S.W.2d 748 (Tex.Crim.App.1982); Ex parte McWilliams, supra, at 836 (Clinton, J., dissenting). * * * * * * [T]o say that [the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals] correctly adopted Blockburger as the sole test for determining jeopardy where an act or transaction violates two separate and distinct statutes is to ignore a whole body of jeopardy law to the contrary.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Herron · Williams v. State

2. ““Since McWilliams we have been given to understand that when one act or transaction violates ‘two distinct statutory provisions,’ the ‘Blockburger test’ is purely a rule of statutory construction, utilized in what is ‘essentially a factual inquiry as to legislative intent [rather than] a conclusive presumption of law,’ Garrett v. United States, [ 471 U.S. 773 ], at 779, [ 105 S.Ct. 2407 ], at 2411-2412, [ 85 L.Ed.2d 764 ], at 771-772 [1985]; Whalen v. United States, [ 445 U.S. 684 ], at 708, [ 100 S.Ct. 1432, at 1446 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715, at 734 (1980)] (Rehnquist dissenting); Rathmell v. State, 717 S.W.2d 33 (Tex.Cr.App.1986) (Clinton dissenting, n. 6). Whether by Blockburger or other means a court has determined that the legislative body intended punishment for both offenses, it then must decide whether successive prosecutions axe barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause....””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ex Parte Herron · Simmons v. State

3. “It was later held that: The Blockburger test is not the only standard for determining whether successive prosecutions impermissively involve the same offense. [[Image here]] [Successive prosecutions will be barred in some circumstances where the second prosecution requires the relitigation of factual issues already resolved by the first.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Herrera v. State · Beltran v. State