People v. Preuss’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently July 2017
4 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · United States v. Dixon · United States v. Clayton · United States v. Fultz · 644 So. 2d 81 - Roberts 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“double jeopardy concerns do not arise [in the context of probation revocation] because probation revocation is not part of a criminal prosecution and constitutes only a reconsideration of the original sentence.... [[Image here]] ... [D]ouble jeopardy is not implicated by probation revocation proceedings because the function of those proceedings is not to punish a defendant for a new crime. Rather, their purpose is to ascertain an appropriate sentence for an offense of which defendant has already been convicted and for which probation was granted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Firth
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.