Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 WIAPP 226 - State v. Hauk

State v. Hauk’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
5
states following
February 2023
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably State v. Smith (2012), 3 Cal. 5th 151 - People v. Sivongxxay (2017)

27 state decisions

140200220102020decided

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 Jackson v. Virginia · Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Sullivan v. Louisiana · Opper v. United States · United States v. Gaudin

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

  1. “The right to a jury trial includes the right to have a jury determine each element of the crime. Further, defendants retain this right no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Therefore, whether Hauk waived her right to have the jury determine all the elements of the crime or only some of them, the waiver analysis is the same.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “evidence sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] defendant intentionally violated his or her bond by committing a crime.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Id., ¶ 35. As a result of the stipulation, the jury did not decide whether Hauk had been charged previously with a felony or misdemeanor, whether she had been released from custody on bond, or whether she had intentionally failed to comply with terms of the bond. Id., ¶ 31. Rather, the jury determined only that Hauk had committed the crime of solicitation. Id. ¶ 45. Citing Villareal , the court of appeals determined that the right to a jury trial in a criminal case”
    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.