Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 64 N.J. 41 - State v. Redinger

State v. Redinger’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
6
states following
May 2012
most recently cited

4 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably State v. Gonzalez (1977), State v. Ingenito (1981)

4 district · 38 state decisions

19019731980199020002010decided

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 Ashe v. Swenson · Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Williams · State v. Labato · State v. Currie

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

  1. “[T]he State should have no part in any kind of trickery. What happened at [Redinger’s second court appearance] smacks of entrapment. The police by that time had statements from two witnesses that [Redinger’s friend] was actually driving the car. This evidence was not disclosed to Redinger at the hearing. Instead, in effect, he was allowed to walk into a waiting charge of perjury. This was not fair play. [ 64 N.J. at 50 ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibition against twice putting a person in jeopardy "for the same offense" does not apply where the "offenses" involved are as different as a substantive crime on the one hand, and perjury (or other related charge) committed at the trial of the charge of commission of that crime, on the other.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““* * * We think that in such case the United States Supreme Court would limit the authority of Ashe , insofar as double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment sense is concerned, at least where state court proceedings are involved.””
    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.