Durrough v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently October 2007 · most notably Kemp v. State (1992), Nichols v. State (1988)
54 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
Relies on Witherspoon v. Illinois · Green v. United States · Blackledge v. Perry · Wade v. Hunter · Adams v. Texas
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrials so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict the defendant. [Citation omitted] But when the trial proceeds to its conclusion despite a legitimate claim of serious prejudicial error, the Double Jeopardy Clause will present no obstacle to a retrial if the conviction is reversed on appeal. United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 , 96 S.Ct. 1075 , 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976); Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 , 16 S.Ct. 1192 , 41 L.Ed. 300 (1896). In the present case the alleged misconduct did not result in a mistrial. The appellant was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death. * * * We reject the appellant’s contention that the alleged misconduct was a bar to further prosecution for this offense.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“(7) if the charge is dismissed upon motion of the state or the charge is disposed of by a final judgment and the defendant is later charged with the same offense or another offense arising out of the same transaction, the period of delay from the date of dismissal or the date of the final judgment to the date from time limitation would commence running on the subsequent charge had there been no previous charge:”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Cole v. State · Johnson v. State““[I]t implies a continuing relationship between the time periods covered by the previous indictment and the subsequent one. This exclusion is designed to prevent abuse by the State, and it should be construed to provide that the defendant is entitled to add [to the time on the subsequent charge] the time which expired while the previous charge was pending.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Coleman v. State · Turner v. State
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.