Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 Ariz. 403 - State v. Hamilton

State v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Clark v. Arizona (2006), Pierce v. State (2000)

32 state decisions

1601993200020102020decided

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 Solem v. Helm · Harmelin v. Michigan · Idaho v. Wright · Yagow v. United States · White v. Illinois

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

  1. “[a]n indictment is duplicitous if it charges separate crimes in the same count. Duplicitous indictments are prohibited because they fail to give adequate notice of the charge, present a hazard of a non-unanimous jury verdict, and make a precise pleading of double jeopardy impossible in the event of a later prosecution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “When the penalty for an offense is prescribed by one law and altered by a subsequent law, the penalty of such second law shall not be inflicted for a breach of the law committed before the second took effect, but the offender shall be punished under the law in force when the offense was committed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[defendant's assertion that he was unable to present an alibi defense, because he could not reconstruct his life for a specific year, is a theoretical, not an actual, prejudice that could be asserted any time an offense was alleged to have occurred over a period of time.”
    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.