Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 844 NE2D 195 - Buggs v. State

Buggs v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
2
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Liteky et al United States · Richardson v. State · Spivey v. State · Griffin v. State · Robinson 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) determine what the first judgment decided and (2) examine how that determination bears on the second case. Determining what the first judgment decided generally involves an examination of the record of the prior proceedings including the pleadings, evidence, charge, and any other relevant matters. Then, the court must decide whether a reasonable jury could have based its verdict upon any factor other than the factor of which the defendant seeks to foreclose consideration. If the jury could have based its decision on another factor, collateral estoppel does not bar relitigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[Fjel-ony murder requires a killing during the commission of a specified felony while murder requires a knowing or intentional killing. ... Therefore, federal double jeopardy principles did not prohibit [the defendant's] retrial for murder.”
    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.