Gori v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
458 federal appellate · 48 district · 602 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,291 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably North Carolina v. Pearce (1969), United States v. Jorn (1971)
458 federal appellate · 48 district · 602 state decisions — followed in 44 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Gori (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Green v. United States · Wade v. Hunter · Ball v. United States · Ex parte Lange · United States v. Josef Perez
Cited together with Wade v. Hunter · United States v. Jorn · Illinois v. Somerville · Downum v. United States · United States v. Josef Perez
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 1,291 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where, for reasons deemed compelling by the trial judge, who is best situated intelligently to make such a decision, the ends of substantial justice cannot be attained without discontinuing the trial, a mistrial may be declared without the defendant’s consent and even over his objection, and he may be retried consistently with the Fifth Amendment.”
108 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“I read the Double Jeopardy Clause as applying a strict standard. The prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy. [The double-jeopardy clause] is designed to help equalize the position of government and the individual, to discourage abusive use of the awesome power of society. Once a trial starts jeopardy attaches. The prosecution must stand or fall on its performance at the trial. I do not see how a mistrial directed because the prosecutor has no witnesses is different from a mistrial directed because the prosecutor abuses his office and is guilty of misconduct. In neither is there a breakdown in judicial machinery such as happens when the judge is stricken, or a juror has been discovered to be disqualified to sit, or when it is impossible or impractical to hold a trial at the time and place set---- The policy of the Bill of Rights is to make rare indeed the occasions when the citizen can for the same offense be required to run the gauntlet [sic] twice. The risk of judicial arbitrariness rests where, in my view, the Constitution puts it-on the Government.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“No person shall * * * be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb * * Article I, § 12 of the Oregon Constitution provides:”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.