Greene v. Massey’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
175 federal appellate · 6 district · 1,923 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,232 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Tibbs v. Florida (1982), United States v. DiFrancesco (1980)
175 federal appellate · 6 district · 1,923 state decisions — followed in 35 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
reviewedGreene v. Massey (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Burks v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · Green v. United States · Crist v. Bretz
Cited together with Burks v. United States · Jackson v. Virginia · Tibbs v. Florida · Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Scott
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 2,232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a second trial once a reviewing court has determined that the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to sustain the verdict.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Boone · Moss v. State“When the concurrence is considered in light of the language of the per curiam opinion, it could reasonably be said that the concurring justices thought that the legally competent evidence adduced at the first trial was insufficient to prove guilt. That is, they were of the opinion that once the inadmissible hearsay evidence was discounted, there was insufficient evidence to permit the jury to convict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Given our decision to remand this case for reconsideration by the Court of Appeals, we need not reach the question of whether the State could, consistent with the Double Jeopardy Clause, try [a defendant] for a lesser included offense in the event that his [conviction for the greater offense] is voided [based on insufficiency of the evidence].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.