State v. Read’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably In Re Orange (2005), 153 Wash. 2d 765 - State v. Freeman (2005)
29 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 Blockburger v. United States · United States v. Dixon · Ball v. United States · Goss v. Board of Education · Pauley v. Beth-Energy Mines, Inc.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there is an element in each offense which is not included in the other, and proof of one offense would not necessarily also prove the other, the offenses are not constitutionally the same and the double jeopardy clause does not prevent convictions for both offenses.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Portrey · State v. Portrey“"For example, the prosecutor sought improper opinion evidence by asking Mr. Walsh if there was `any reason for Mr. Read at that point to defend himself'; by asking Ms. McIntosh if Mr. Read `ha[d] to pull out a weapon at that time,' if he `ha[d] to shoot Mr. Larson,' if `anybody ma[d]e him defend himself,' or if there was any reason why Mr. Larson `needed to be shot'; and by asking Ms. Flom if there was any reason why Mr. Larson was shot or for Mr. Read to defend himself. These questions solicited opinions that, at least by inference, went directly to the validity of Mr. Read's defense, and thus his guilt."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Read“There is no question that Mr. Read's murder and assault convictions are the same in fact, because they are based on the same act, directed at the same victim.... Under the `same evidence' test, the offenses are the same in law .... [P]roof of second degree intentional murder necessarily also proves first degree assault.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re Orange
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.