State v. Rechtschaffer’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
119 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably State v. Roth (1984), State v. Harvey (1997)
119 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 Benton v. Maryland · United States v. Jorn · Wade v. Hunter · United States v. Dinitz · Illinois v. Somerville
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No person shall, after acquittal, be tried for the same offense.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Manifest necessity" and "the ends of public justice" are concepts whose definitive outlines depend upon the singular facts and circumstances of each case. Existence of these two criteria depends upon balancing two prime factors: Public interest in seeing that there is a fair trial designed to end in a just and equitable judgment; and the constitutional protection to which the defendant is entitled that he shall not be harassed by subjection to two trials and two punishments for essentially the same offense. [ Id. at 405 , 360 A. 2d 362 (citations omitted).]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion so that a mistrial was justified? Did it have a viable alternative? If justified, what circumstances created the situation? Was it due to prosecutorial or defense misconduct? Will a second trial accord with the ends of public justice and with proper judicial administration? Will the defendant be prejudiced by a second trial, and if so to what extent? [ Id. at 410-11 , 360 A. 2d 362 (citation omitted).]”
3 later decisions 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.