Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 272 Md. 312 - Cornish v. State

Cornish v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

125
cited by 125 later decisions
3
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

124 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Wilhelm v. State (1974), State v. Hicks (1979)

124 state decisions

410197419801990200020102020decided

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 Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Jorn · Wade v. Hunter · Illinois v. Somerville · In re Kauffman Mutual Fund Actions

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

  1. “"We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested Courts of justice 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. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances, which would render it proper to interfere. To be sure, the power ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes, i . . But, after all, they have the right to order the discharge; and the security which the public have for the faithful, sound, and conscientious exercise of this discretion, rests, in this, as in other cases, upon the responsibility of the Judges, under their oaths of office.” Id. at 580 .”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The view in this state was that, under the common law’s double jeopardy prohibition, jeopardy did not attach until the rendition of a verdict and that, therefore, a retrial following the declaration of a mistrial did not give rise to a double jeopardy problem.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] retrial is barred by the Fifth Amendment where * reasonable alternatives to a mistrial, such as a continuance , are feasible and could cure the problem[.]”
    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.