State v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 2020
5 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 Arizona v. Washington · Oregon v. Kennedy · United States v. Scott · United States v. Wilson · Price v. Georgia
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The determination of whether there is manifest necessity to retry [the defendant], without [his] consent, should control whether jeopardy continues and retrial is constitutional. [The defendant's] individual interests and constitutional protections must be balanced with society's interest in recharging [the defendant] with another offense to ensure the ends of justice are met. [The defendant's] individual right to be free from continuing jeopardy imposed by the government weighs heavily in his favor. Fairness and justice dictate that an individual who has served his sentence, and is not seeking any relief other than that imposed in the original action, should not be retried by the State for the same offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Walters · State v. Walters“[T]he constitutional protection against double jeopardy is an individual right which, as a general proposition, is invoked by the defendant seeking protection against retrial. See Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 681-82 , 102 S. Ct. 2083 , 72 L. Ed. 2d 416 (1982) (“The Double Jeopardy Clause represents a constitutional policy of finality for the defendant’s benefit in criminal proceedings.” (Stevens, J., concurring)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Walters · State v. Walters“[t]he facial invalidity we noted [there] is relevant only to the one year statute of limitation for personal restraint petitions but does not control determination of any other issues.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Blair · State v. Walters
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.