green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.2 score
“in order to determine if the mistrial was required by manifest necessity, the critical inquiry is whether less drastic alterna- tives were available.”
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "but see"
State v. Saavedra
But see, Dunkerley v. Hogan, 579 F.2d 141 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 872 , 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979).
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Harrison v. Gillespie
in order to determine if the mistrial was required by manifest necessity, the critical inquiry is whether less drastic alternatives were available.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Harrison v. Gillespie
in order to determine if the mistrial was required by manifest necessity, the critical inquiry is whether less drastic alterna- tives were available.
cited
Cited "see"
Opinion No.
See Northern Cal. Supermarkets, Inc. v. Central Cal. Lettuce Producers Coop., 413 F. Supp. 984 , 988-89 (N.D.Cal. 1976), aff'd, 580 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brian J. Corey v. District Court of Vermont, Unit 1, Rutland Circuit
In such circumstances, when unforeseen events intrude into the trial, the trial judge’s decision whether manifest necessity exists to declare a mistrial should be afforded the “highest degree of respect.” Washington, 434 U.S. at 511 , 98 S.Ct. at 833 ; accord Dunkerley v. Hogan, 579 F.2d 141, 145 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 872 , 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc. v. Dukay Air Limited a Michigan Corporation, and Victor R. Dukay
See Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park District, 583 F.2d 378 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 (1979) (estoppel effect on a federal claim of a prior state judgment can only be decided by the federal court before which the claim is litigated); Overseas Motors, Inc. v. Import Motors Limited, Inc. 375 F. Supp. 499, 522 (E.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kwang Fu Peng
See MacArthur v. Bank of New York, 524 F.Supp. 1205, 1207 (S.D.N.Y.1981). 6 The court finds that based on these factors there is a “manifest necessity” to declare a mistrial because it is impossible at this point for both sides to receive a fundamentally fair trial, see Dunkerley v. Hogan, 579 F.2d 141, 145 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 872 , 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979), as well as the impracticality of holding the jury.
discussed
Cited "see"
County of Cook v. Midcon Corp.
See Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. of Peoria, 583 F.2d 378, 379 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 873 , 59 L.Ed.2d 57 (1978) (federal antitrust claim); Marrese v. American Academy of Orth.
cited
Cited "see"
Quality Furniture Rentals, Inc. v. United States
See Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park District, 583 F.2d 378 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 873 , 59 L.Ed.2d 57 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
GVF Cannery, Inc. v. California Tomato Growers Ass'n
See Northern California Supermarkets, Inc. v. Central California Lettuce Producers Cooperative, 413 F.Supp. 984 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff’d. 580 F.2d 369 (9th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 873 , 59 L.Ed.2d 57 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. Commonwealth
See Dunkerley v. Hogan, 579 F.2d 141 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 (1979) (mistrial improper where continuance was fair, practical, and feasible alternative); United States v. Rich, 589 F.2d 1025 (10th Cir. 1978) (abuse of discretion where judge discharged jury out of the presence of defendant and prosecutor after a continuance of one and a half months); United States v. McKoy, 591 F.2d 218 (3d Cir. 1979) (duty of appellate court to see that alternatives to declaring a mistrial were completely canvassed so as to avoid double jeopardy bar); United States v. Lynch, 598 F.2d 132 (D.…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Agritronics Corp. v. National Dairy Herd Ass'n
See also Northern California Supermarkets, Inc. v. Central California Lettuce Producers Cooperative, 413 F.Supp. 984, 990 (N.D.Cal.1976), aff'd, 580 F.2d 369 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 873 , 59 L.Ed.2d 57 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Niccolich
Under these circumstances, we conclude that the defendant was deprived of his " 'valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal’ ” (Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458, 466 ; Wade v Hunter, 336 US 684, 689 ), and, accordingly, re-prosecution of the defendant is barred by double jeopardy, and the indictment must be dismissed (see, People v Ferguson, supra, 67 NY2d 383 ; People v Michael, supra, 48 NY2d 1 ; see also, Dunkerley v Hogan, 579 F2d 141, cert denied 439 US 1090 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Harvey Keith Smith, United States of America v. Richard H. Palmer, United States of America v. Susan J. Grimm, A/K/A Joan Edwards
See, e.g., Dunkerley v. Hogan, 579 F.2d 141, 147-48 (2nd Cir.1978), (holding that mistrial was not justified by “manifest necessity” for double jeopardy purposes when district court could instead have continued the trial for 7 to 10 days in the face of defendant’s emergency *1269 hospitalization), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 872 , 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lifemark Hospital of Louisiana, Inc. v. Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Liljeberg Enterprises, Inc.)
See also Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway and Park District, 583 F.2d 378, 379 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 873 , 59 L.Ed.2d 57 (1979) (federal antitrust claims not precluded despite defendants’ argument that they were adjudicated in state court because jurisdiction over federal antitrust suits is exclusively in federal courts).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. James J. Marren
See also Dunkerley v. Hogan, 579 F.2d 141, 145 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 872 , 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peters v. Quick
See United States v. Smith, 621 F.2d 350 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1087 , 101 S.Ct. 877 , 66 L.Ed.2d 813 (1981); United States v. Potash, 118 F.2d 54 (2d Cir.1941); see also Dunkerley v. Hogan, 579 F.2d 141 , 148 n. 7 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 872 , 59 L.Ed.2d 56 (1979); People v. Portalatin, 105 Misc.2d 725 , 433 N.Y.S.2d 57, 58 (Queens County 1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Affiliated Capital Corp. v. City of Houston
See, e. g., Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park District of Peoria, Illinois, 557 F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1977), vacated and remanded, 435 U.S. 992 , 98 S.Ct. 1642 , 56 L.Ed.2d 81 (1978), reinstated, 583 F.2d 378 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1090 , 99 S.Ct. 873 , 59 L.Ed.2d 57 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cannon v. University of Chicago
(2×)
Compare Division 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, 582 F. 2d 444 (CA8 1978), cert. denied, 439 U. S. 1090 (1979); Local 519, Amalgamated Transit Union v. LaCrosse Municipal Transit Utility, 585 F. 2d 1340 (CA7 1978), with Local 519, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Greater Portland Transit Dist., 589 F. 2d 1 (CA1 1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kansas City Area Transportation Authority
v.
Division 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO
v.
Division 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO
No. 78-734.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 8, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of American Public Transit Assn, for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae granted. Cer-tiorari denied.