Girts v. Yanai’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. “We do not hold that a district court can materially amend its judgment after the state has released a petitioner, and we acknbwledge binding Supreme Court authority that a habeas court does not maintain “continuing supervision over a retrial conducted pursuant to a conditional writ granted by the habeas court.” Pitchess v. Davis, 421 U.S. 482 , 490, 95 S.Ct. 1748 , 44 L.Ed.2d 317 (1975). In the unique factual setting of this case, we simply read the November 5, 2008 order as clarifying the November 3, 2008 order, in which the district court granted an unconditional writ and in which the district court was free to decide whether to bar retrial.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. D'Ambrosio v. Bagley

2. “In a typical case in which a prisoner is released because a state fails to retry the prisoner by the deadline set in a conditional writ, “the state is not precluded from rearresting petitioner and retrying him under the same indictment.” ... However, in “extraordinary circumstances, ” such as when “the state inexcusably, repeatedly, or otherwise abusively fails to act within the prescribed time period or if the state’s delay is likely to prejudice the petitioner’s ability to mount a defense at trial,” a habeas court may “forbid[] reprosecution.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. D'Ambrosio v. Bagley

3. “The general rule ... is that a successful post-conviction appeal is considered differently than a mistrial. "[Rjeprosecution for the same offense is permitted where the defendant wins a reversal on appeal of a conviction ... [T]he crucial difference between reprosecution after appeal by the defendant and reprosecution after a sua sponte judicial mistrial declaration is that in the first situation the defendant has not been deprived of his option to go to the first jury and, perhaps, end the dispute then and there with an acquittal.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. D'Ambrosio v. Bagley