Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 Ariz. 446 - State v. Wright

State v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
May 2001
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 2001

20 state decisions

1201975198019902000decided

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 Ashe v. Swenson · 19 Ariz. App. 32 - State v. Ballinger · Muller v. State · 21 Ariz. App. 148 - City of Tucson v. Valencia · Wright v. SUPERIOR COURT IN & FOR CTY. OF MARICOPA

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

  1. ““Thus, in cases where it is clear that the prosecutor, motivated by a desire to avoid an acquittal in a case which is going badly, engages in purposeful misconduct which forces the court to declare a mistrial, the policy of protecting an accused individual from harassment by consecutive prosecution may demand that a retrial be barred, even though the mistrial was manifestly necessary. Muller v. State, supra, 478 P.2d at 827 . (footnotes omitted).” The court in Wright concluded that: “There is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the State engaged in any intentional misconduct or that defendant was in any way subjected to harassment or oppression in being tried the third time. We find no violation of defendant’s rights under the double jeopardy provisions of the Arizona or federal Constitutions.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the State engaged in any intentional misconduct or that the defendant was in any way subjected to harassment or oppression. . . .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Why would you like to see the defendant convicted?”
    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.