Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 429 SO2D 1344 - Spaziano v. State

Spaziano v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2016

23 state decisions

901983199020002010decided

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 Rosacker v. Rosacker · Brady v. Samaha · Ellis v. State · 362 So. 2d 668 - Whitted v. State · 294 So. 2d 124 - State Ex Rel. Mitchell v. Walker

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

  1. “[A] valid reason for declaring a mistrial must be predicated on either of two bases: (1) On some misfortune which, although the fault of neither party, renders continuation of the trial impossible or unreasonably prejudicial to the substantial interest of either the judicial process itself, the defendant, the state, or both, or (2) upon some unfair or wrongful tactic, action or conduct on the part of the defendant, by which a substantial interest in the state is unfairly frustrated or embarrassed.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A defendant's silence or his failure to object or protest against an illegal discharge of the jury before a verdict, does not constitute a consent, and is not a waiver of the constitutional prohibition against a subsequent trial for the same offense if the jury has been improperly discharged.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “When this point has been reached ... a trial judge should exercise his power to discharge the jury only in cases of manifest, urgent, or absolute necessity. If the jury is discharged without the defendant's consent, for a legally insufficient reason, and without absolute necessity, such a discharge is equivalent to an acquittal and precludes a subsequent trial for the same offense.”
    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.