Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 468 U.S. 27 - Thigpen v. Roberts

Thigpen v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

322
cited by 322 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
27
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

103 federal appellate · 15 district · 114 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 322 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Heckler v. Chaney (1985), Grady v. Corbin (1990)

103 federal appellate · 15 district · 114 state decisions — followed in 27 states

138019841990200020102020decided

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

reviewedCalhoun v. City of Meridian (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Dandridge v. Williams · Brown v. Ohio · Bordenkircher v. Hayes

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

  1. “reasonably sure that the Court did not intend to transmute the traditional double jeopardy analysis from an either “up or down” inquiry based on the evidence required to prove the statutory elements of a crime into a “substantial claim” inquiry based upon the evidence that the State introduced at trial.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “we may affirm [a grant of summary judgment] on any ground that the law and the record permit.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if in the pending manslaughter prosecution Illinois relies on and proves a failure to slow to avoid an accident as the reckless act necessary to prove manslaughter, Vitale would have a substantial claim of double jeopardy under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. [Id. at 421, 100 S.Ct. at 2267 , 65 L.Ed.2d at 238 .]”
    2 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.