Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 Md. App. 624 - West v. State

52 Md. App. 624 - West v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
4
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably 57 Md. App. 338 - Ball v. State (1984), State v. Mulkey (1989)

33 state decisions

18019821990200020102020decided

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 Burks v. United States · Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Jorn · Arizona v. Washington · Oregon v. Kennedy

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

  1. “knowing it to be error, but desiring to ‘sabotage’ a probable loser either 1) by snatching an unexpected victory from probable defeat if not caught, or 2) by getting caught, thereby provoking the mistrial, averting the probable acquittal and living to fight again another day. (A calculated sabotaging of a perceived ‘lost cause’ in either event; an indifference to whether he is caught or not).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We are here called upon to explore a secluded but exotic corner of the double jeopardy garden — prosecutorial and judicial overreaching. In life, it is seldom seen except as an imagined possibility in the most painstakingly thorough of footnotes. As a contention, however, it is in luxuriant vogue and is being resorted to promiscuously.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he circumstances under which such a defendant may invoke the bar of double jeopardy in a second effort to try him are limited to those cases in which the conduct giving rise to the successful motion for a mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial.”
    3 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.