Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 288 ARK 162 - Jones v. State

Jones v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently January 2025

18 state decisions

6019861990200020102020decided

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 · Arizona v. Washington · Illinois v. Somerville · Downum v. United States · Jones v. State

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

  1. “The manifest necessity permitting the discharge of a jury without rendering a verdict and without justifying a plea of double jeopardy may arise from various causes or circumstances; but the circumstances must be forceful and compelling, and must be in the nature of a cause or emergency over which neither court nor attorney has control, or which could not have been averted by diligence and care.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]n view of the importance of the [defendant’s valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal], and the fact that it is frustrated by any mistrial, the prosecutor must shoulder the burden of justifying the mistrial if he is to avoid the double jeopardy bar. His burden is a heavy one. The prosecutor must demonstrate “manifest necessity’’ for any mistrial declared over the objection of the defendant.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “It was only then that the prosecution learned of his unavailability, having relied on his recent observations and the subpoenas. There was nothing in these circumstances to alert the prosecution to any likelihood of Stuecken’s absence. Nor do we find that the prosecution should have exercised greater diligence in order to have discovered the absence of this witness.”
    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.