State v. Hoadley’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably State v. Rucker (2003), State v. Bowker (2008)
41 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Apprendi v. New Jersey · Katz v. United States · Ornelas v. United States · Liteky et al United States
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“attitude of personal enmity towards the party or in favor of the adverse party to the other party’s detriment. It is not the mere possession of views regarding the law or the conduct of a party. Prejudice is in the personal sense rather than in the judicial sense and refers to a mental attitude or a disposition of the judge towards a party. In order for the alleged bias and prejudice to be disqualifying, it must stem from an extrajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from participation in the case[.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. List · State v. Good Plume“[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or ofpnor proceedings, do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus, judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. List · State v. Page“(1) all of the elements of the included offense are fewer in number than the elements of the greater offense; (2) the penalty for the included lesser offense must be less than that of the greater offense; and (3) both offenses must contain common elements so that the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. State v. Waloke · State v. Giroux
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.