Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 N.J. 43 - State v. Goodman

State v. Goodman’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
July 2003
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2003

18 state decisions

80198319902000decided

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

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2113

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · Hanna v. Plumer · Illinois v. Vitale · Bartkus v. People of State of Illinois · Abbate v. United States

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

  1. “as representing a drastic curtailment of the `dual sovereignty' doctrine.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The first prosecution resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction, ... and the subsequent prosecution is based on the same conduct, unless (1) the offense of which the defendant was formerly convicted or acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each requires proof of a fact not required by the other and the law defining each of such offenses is intended to prevent a substantially different harm or evil or (2) the offense for which the defendant is subsequently prosecuted is intended to prevent a substantially more serious harm or evil than the offense of which he was formerly convicted or acquitted or (3) the second offense was not consummated when the former trial began....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “recognizes that separate governmental jurisdictions have concurrent power to proscribe criminal conduct and to prosecute crime; and, further, each sovereign may exercise this power without regard to whether particular conduct is or was the subject of separate criminal proceedings undertaken by another jurisdiction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.