Balducci v. Eberly’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2009
24 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 United States v. Ewell · United States v. Tateo · Ogletree v. Ohio · Presbyterian Church v. Mary Elizabeth Blue Hull Memorial Presbyterian Church · Lansky v. Savoretti
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(d) Remand. (1) Generally. If the Court concludes that the substantial merits of a case will not be determined by affirming, reversing or modifying the judgment, or that justice will be served by permitting further proceedings, the Court may remand the case to a lower court. In the order remanding a case, the appellate court shall state the purpose for the remand. The order of remand and the opinion upon which the order is based are conclusive as to the points decided. Upon remand, the lower court shall conduct any further proceedings necessary to determine the action in accordance with the opinion and order of the appellate court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The key issue then is whether the original mandate amounted to an acquittal____ It is our ruling that where the mandate is ambiguous, one must look to the opinion and other surrounding circumstances to determine the intent of the court. After a review of state and federal cases, we conclude that the expression “Judgments Reversed” does not of itself amount to an acquittal and does not prohibit the interpretation that a new trial is intended. [Citations omitted, emphasis added].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he key issue ... [is] whether the ... mandate contemplated a grant of a new trial____ As a preliminary matter, we find that the ... mandate is ambiguous. Where a mandate is ambiguous, one must look to the opinion and other surrounding circumstances.... In examining the expression “Judgment Reversed,” we recognize that such an expression in and of itself does not prohibit the interpretation that a new trial is intended.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrison v. Harrison
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.