Spradling v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Phillips v. State (1990), Huffman v. State (2008)
34 state decisions
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 · Brown v. Ohio · Bell v. United States · Sanabria v. United States · Davis v. Alaska
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cook v. State · Vineyard v. State“The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Steels v. State · Jimenez v. State“[T]he gravamen of the offense and the intent of the Legislature is not that a person stop and play the good Samaritan. The language of the statute is that ‘the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person ... shall render to any person injured in such accident reasonable assistance, including the carrying, or making of arrangements for the carrying, of such person to a physician, surgeon, or hospital for medical or surgical treatment.’ The purpose of the statute is obvious-those who are victims of an accident and who need assistance should be aided by those who are the most capable of doing so and this is regardless of the altruistic motives of those who must give the aid.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cook v. State
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.