144 N.J. Super. 268 - State v. Laganella’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably State v. Carter (1982), State v. Zola (1988)
71 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Russell · United States v. Jorn · Wade v. Hunter
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we have become increasingly candid in our facing up to an awareness that important interests other than those of defendant alone are involved in the trial of criminal cases.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Before a dismissal of an indictment is warranted in such circumstances, we believe there' must be a finding of intention inconsistent with fair play and therefore inconsistent with due process, or an egregious carelessness or prosecutorial excess tantamount to suppression. In the absence of these conditions, the right of the public to its day in court in the prosecution of properly found indictments should be forfeited only if otherwise there would be manifest and harmful prejudice to defendant. Such is not the case here, a fact properly found by the judge below, [at 282-283]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]o apply the bar of double jeopardy in the instant matter, absent compelling considerations of fairness to defendant or for the purpose of protection against governmental action found by us not to be arbitrary, would disserve that purpose, for there has still been no trial on the merits.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.