State v. Rodman’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently June 1991 · most notably State v. Hingle (1962), 583 So. 2d 443 - Trans-Global Alloy v. First Nat. Bank (1991)
27 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 State v. Dudoussat · State v. Seals · State v. Fuselier · 10 La. Ann. 271 - State v. Ladd
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We are of the opinion that the language used by the court addressed to the jury, under the circumstances of this case, may have had the effect of coercing them to agree upon a verdict, and is therefore reversible error. "The expression `The Court will not accept a mistrial.' coming from the trial judge himself, carried great weight with the jury, as he was the presiding officer of the court, and they were under the sworn duty to accept the law applicable to the case as given to them by him, and this in itself might have impaired the right of the accused, granted by the Constitution, to a trial by a fair and impartial jury."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We are of the opinion that, when the jury came into court, stated that they could not agree, and wished to report a mistrial, the statement of the trial judge to the effect that the court would not accept a mistrial and that they must deliberate further was, in effect, coercing a verdict either of guilty as charged in the information or of any lesser offense contained therein, or of not guilty, and this statement, in our opinion, deprived the accused of the right to a mistrial in the event the jury could not agree. ”23 So. 2d at 205. (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It is well settled that, when the court is informed by a jury that they cannot agree, it is not error for the court to impress upon them the importance of the case, urge them to come to an agreement, and send them back for further deliberation; for the question of the discharge of the jury because of inability to agree on a verdict is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and the exercise of such discretion is not ordinarily subject to review."”
1 later decision 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.