People v. Hicks’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2018
7 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.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he assumption that, as a matter of law, manifest necessity requires the exploration of less drastic alternatives to mistrial ... ignores that the United States Supreme Court has specifically rejected [this] proposition”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Lett“[t]he Supreme Court appears to use `consent' ... to refer to mistrials not requested by the defendant, but only acquiesced to”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Lett“`must in some instances be subordinated to the public's interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Lett
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.