Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 14 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from State v. Contreras.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | State v. Contreras Anchor | green | “the quality and nature of the acts or the objects and results involved are distinguishable.” | 5 |
| 2 | State v. Schackow | green | “we also consider whether the facts presented at trial establish that the jury reasonably could have inferred independent factual bases for the charged offenses.” | 3 |
| 3 | State v. Baroz | green | “whether the legislature intended to create separately punishable offenses.” | 3 |
| 4 | State v. Sena | green | “unitary conduct is not present when one crime is completed before another is committed, or when the force used to commit a crime is separate from the force used to commit another crime.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.