Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 20 ARKAPP 146 - Hubbard v. State

Hubbard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 2019

8 state decisions

401987199020002010decided

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 Heard v. State · 3 Ark. App. 275 - Hughes v. State

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. “The plain wording of [5-13-202] imparts that knowledge on the part of the defendant must be personal to him. The statute does not provide a substitute or explanatory equivalent. We believe the test is whether from the circumstances in the case at bar, appellant, not some other person or persons, knew that his victim was sixty years of age or older. A different result by this court could have been reached had the General Assembly defined “knows to be” in the above statute to include one who has information that would lead an ordinary, prudent person faced with similar information to believe that the information is fact.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “(a) A person commits battery in the second degree if: (4) He intentionally or knowingly, without legal justification, causes physical injury to one he knows to be: (C) An individual sixty (60) years of age or older or twelve (12) years of age or younger[.]”
    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.