United States v. Evers’s Empirical Analysis
569 F.2d 876 · 1978
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably United States v. Bobo (1978), United States v. Starling (1978)
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7201 · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Abney v. United States · United States v. Jorn · Wade v. Hunter · United States v. Dinitz
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he law has invested courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances, which would render it proper to interfere. To be sure, the power ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“he wished to have his fate decided by the jury first impanelled and to avoid 'the anxiety and heartbreak of (and delay in awaiting) another trial,' the very concern with which the double jeopardy clause deals.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. Lockhart“The determination whether 'manifest necessity' exists for the declaration of a mistrial is, of course, an inquiry particularly suited to case-by-case analysis, and not hospitable to generalities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Walker v. Lockhart
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.