State v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
8 district · 49 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently May 2012 · most notably Spring v. Constantino (1975), Appliances, Inc. v. Yost (1982)
8 district · 49 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 Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Douglas v. People of State of California · Draper v. Washington · Lane v. Brown · Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms & Paroles
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[The Appellate Court] cannot find facts or draw conclusions of fact from primary facts found, but can only review such findings to determine whether they could legally, logically and reasonably be found thereby establishing that the trial court could reasonably conclude as it did. . . . It is . . . not the onus of this court to search the record and transcripts to determine whether the trier of fact could have reached a conclusion other than the one it did. Rather, this court must focus on the conclusion of the trial court, as well as the path by which it arrived at that conclusion, to determine whether it is legally correct and factually supported.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(T)he duty of the state to provide the same right of initial appeal to an indigent defendant as is available to a wealthy one has been established beyond question * * (at 635, 228 A.2d at 134 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Perkins v. Adams“[i]f the court is satisfied that the applicant is indigent and that the proposed appeal would not be frivolous. . . .”
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.