State v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently April 2019 · most notably Manzanares v. Bell (1974), Woodring v. Hall (1968)
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 111 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 McGowan v. State of Maryland Gallagher · Connally v. General Construction Co. · Winters v. People of State of New York · Braunfeld v. Brown · United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co.
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The test is whether the language conveys a sufficient definite warning as to the proscribed conduct when measured by common understanding and practice.” (Citing cases.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Randol · State v. Meinert““The test to determine whether a criminal statute is unconstitutionally void by reason of being vague and indefinite is whether its language conveys a sufficiently definite warning as to the conduct proscribed when measured by common understanding and practice. If a statute conveys this warning it is not void for vagueness. Conversely, a statute which either requires or forbids the doing of an act in terms so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application is violative of due process. At its heart the test for vagueness is a commonsense determination of fundamental fairness.” p. 4.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Randol · State v. Meinert“"In all prosecutions, the accused shall be allowed to ... meet the witness face to face...."”
2 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.