Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 Ohio App. 3d 275 - State v. Doherty

20 Ohio App. 3d 275 - State v. Doherty’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably State v. Loza (1994), 132 Ohio App. 3d 268 - State v. Roughton (1999)

37 state decisions

18019841990200020102020decided

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 Oregon v. Kennedy · United States v. Scott · United States v. Dinitz · State v. Widner · United States v. Thomas

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

  1. “The general rule is that retrial is not barred when a mistrial is requested by a defendant and granted on his behalf. Montgomery, supra. A defendant's motion for a mistrial is a deliberate choice on his part to forego his right to have the first jury determines his fate. United States v. Scott (1978), 437 U.S. 82 . * * * Nevertheless, a narrow exception to the general rule exists when `governmental actions [are] intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby * * * subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecution.' United States v. Dinitz (1976), 424 U.S. 600 , 611 . {¶ 46} "In Oregon v. Kennedy, supra, at 679 , the Supreme Court held: {¶ 47} "`* * * [T]he circumstances under which such a defendant may invoke the bar of double jeopardy in a second effort to try him are limited to those cases in which the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.' (Emphasis added.) {¶ 48} " Oregon, supra, makes clear that prosecutorial misconduct will bar a second trial only when such behavior was `intentionally' calculated to cause or invite mistrial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Oregon, supra, makes clear that prosecutorial misconduct will bar a second trial only when such behavior was `intentionally' calculated to cause or invite mistrial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In Oregon v. Kennedy, supra, at 679 , the Supreme Court held: {¶ 47}”
    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.