Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 WASH 482 - State v. Hubbell

State v. Hubbell’s Empirical Analysis

1898

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
January 1982
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 1982

8 state decisions

201898190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 United States v. Sanges

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

  1. ““. . . But an appeal shall not be allowed to the state in any criminal action, except when the error complained of is in setting aside the indictment or information, or in arresting the judgment on the ground that the facts stated in the indictment or information do not constitute a crime, or is some other material error in law not affecting the acquittal of a prisoner on the merits. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The acquittal was upon the merits of the case as determined by the court. Under such circumstances we think the defendant has been once in jeopardy.””
    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.