Thompson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
155 U.S. 271 · 1894
Citation profile
132 federal appellate · 16 district · 220 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 460 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably United States v. Jorn (1971), Arizona v. Washington (1978)
132 federal appellate · 16 district · 220 state decisions — followed in 35 states
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 United States v. Josef Perez · Logan v. United States · Simmons v. United States · Gourko v. United States
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 460 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As to the question raised by the plea of former jeopardy, it is sufficiently answered by citing United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 , 6 L. Ed. 165 , Simmons v. United States, 142 U. S. 148 , 12 S. Ct. 171 , 35 L. Ed. 968 , and Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263 , 12 S. Ct. 617 , 36 L. Ed. 429 . Those eases clearly establish the law of this court that courts of justice are invested with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated, and to order a trial by another jury, and that the defendant is not thereby twice put in jeopardy within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Blair v. White · Ex Parte Hunter“taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the . . . [mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Gray · State v. Folkerts“one of the jury was disqualified by having been a member of the grand jury that found the indictment. . . .”
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.