Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 952 NE2D 359 - Koch v. State

Koch v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Griffith v. United States · Target Corp. v. Hollister · Benitez v. Mata · Anglemyer v. State · Childress 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “essentially provides that actions that are sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal offenses may be so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action as to constitute a single transaction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The purpose [of the continuous crime doctrine] is to prevent the State from charging a defendant twice for the same continuous offense.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “person engages in conduct 'knowingly' if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.”
    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.