Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 N.J. Super. 399 - State v. Ciniglio

57 N.J. Super. 399 - State v. Ciniglio’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
5
states following
November 2000
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2000 · most notably State v. Wolf (1965), State v. Romeo (1964)

3 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

100195919601970198019902000decided

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 Patton v. United States · State v. Dancyger · Sturgiss v. Corbin · 46 N.J. Super. 193 - State v. Bentley · Thrush v. Fullhart

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. ““In any case in which a jury of twelve has been sworn to try a case, and any juror by reason of illness or other cause becomes unable to continue until a verdict is reached, the court may excuse such juror. If no alternate juror is available to replace such juror, the parties at any time before verdict may stipulate in writing with court approval that the jury shall consist of any number less than twelve, except in class 1 felonies, and the jurors thus remaining shall proceed to try the case and determine the issues unless discharged by the court for inability to reach a verdict.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““So long as defendant knowingly and understanding^ participated in the oral agreement to go ahead with 11 jurors, he has no standing to now claim that such arrangement is not binding on him because it was not in writing. We certainly do not approve of noncompliance with [the rule requiring a written waiver]. However, it is clear that the purpose underlying [that] rule was satisfied and the spirit of the rule was observed. In this instance the procedural irregularity does not vitiate an otherwise fair trial.””
    1 later decision 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.