State v. Tijerina’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

53 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * means simply that when an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future lawsuit. (Emphasis added.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Rogers · State v. Nagel

2. ““It should not be inferred from this opinion that this Court intends to encourage or approve piecemeal prosecution. Such disorderly criminal procedures involve a myriad of problems which threaten the existence of our judicial system. The risk of prejudice to the accused, and the waste of time inherent in multiple trials, both perpetuate delays in the judicial process and unconscionable expenditures of public funds, all of which could be avoided by prosecutors getting their facts straight, their theories clearly in mind and trying all charges together.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Gonzales · State v. Tanton

3. “The United States Supreme Court in Ashe' v. Swenson, supra, [ 397 U.S. 436 , 90 S.Ct. 1189 , 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970)] did not apply “same transaction” test which would prohibit the piecemeal prosecution of multiple crimes arising out of the same transaction. Nor did it apply the “same evidence” test which would prohibit a second prosecution only when the matter set out in the second indictment would have been sufficient to secure a conviction on the first. What the court did adopt was a test that looked to all the relevant matters of the trial, and sought to determine whether or not the jury, in reaching its verdict in the first trial, necessarily or actually determined the same issues which the State attempts to raise in the second trial. Therefore, the test proposed in Ashe v. Swenson, supra, will be utilized by this court in considering whether or not the second trial and convictions violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against double jeopardy. [Emphasis added].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Maestas