Blondes v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 district · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Thomas v. State (1976), Ward v. State (1981)
2 district · 99 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 Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · United States v. Jorn · Illinois v. Somerville · Ball 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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“meaningful trial proceedings” had not yet occurred. Therefore, the “meaningful trial proceedings” to which we referred were those that would have occurred after the trial had begun. . Double jeopardy does not attach in a non-jury trial until "the judge begins to hear or receive evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Odem v. State · DiMeglio v. State““When the prosecution asks for a ruling on the admissibility of the chief documentary evidence against a defendant, when it begins offering other documentary evidence against the defendant, and when it offers the testimony of a witness as a necessary condition to the admissibility of such evidence, then the court has begun ‘to hear the evidence.’ And under the alternate test of ‘swearing the first witness,’ jeopardy attached when Mr. Miller took the oath.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“One aspect of the double jeopardy prohibition which is firmly settled in this state as a common law principle, is that the entry of a nolle prosequi, without the defendant’s consent, and after jeopardy has attached, operates as an acquittal and precludes further prosecution for the same offense On the other hand, where a nolle prosequi is entered before jeopardy attaches, the State is only precluded from prosecuting the defendant further under that indictment, but the defendant may be proceeded against for the same offense by another indictment or information.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gilmer v. State
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.