Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 746 SW2D 29 - Ex parte McCullough

Ex parte McCullough’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
September 1991
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Ashe v. Swenson · Illinois v. Vitale · May v. State · Ex Parte Peterson · Bradley 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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “In our case, the State is not required to prove any ultimate issue in its DWI case that it was necessarily required to prove in the FSRA case. The fact that in the FSRA trial appellant was shown to be intoxicated when he drove his car into another car and left the scene of the accident does not preclude the State from subsequently trying its DWI case any more than it would have had the first offense been murder with the evidence showing that appellant was intoxicated when he committed the act. [[Image here]] We have found no case that holds that presenting proof of conduct which is not an essential element of the offense charged would preclude the prosecution of the same conduct on the trial of an offense for which the conduct is an essential element.”
    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.