Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 610 NE2D 275 - Ried v. State

Ried v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2019

18 state decisions

140199320002010decided

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 Teague v. Lane · Arizona v. Washington · Oregon v. Kennedy · Lannan v. State · Brown v. State

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

  1. “(a) A prosecution is barred if there was a former prosecution of the defendant based on the same facts and for commission of the same offense and if; (1) the former prosecution resulted in acquittal or conviction of the defendant (A conviction of an included offense constitutes an acquittal of the greater offense, even if the conviction is subsequently set aside.); or (2) the former prosecution was terminated after the jury was impaneled and sworn or, in a trial by the court without a jury, after the first witness was sworn, unless (1) the defendant consented to the termination or waived, by motion to dismiss or otherwise, his right to object to the termination, (i) it was physically impossible to proceed with the trial in conformity with law, (ii) there was a legal defect in the proceedings that would make any judgment entered upon a verdict reversible as a matter of law, (iv) prejudicial conduct, in or outside the courtroom, made it impossible to proceed with the trial without injustice to either the defendant or the state.... (b) If the prosecuting authority brought about any of the cireumstances in subdivisions (a)(2)(1) through (a)(2)(vi) of this section, with the intent to cause termination of the trial, another prosecution is barred.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “must constitute a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[a] defendant waives [her] right to raise double jeopardy by failing to make a timely objection to the discharge of the jury or to the court's declaration of a mistrial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.