State v. Hoverson’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently January 2025
2 federal appellate · 11 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 Chapman v. State of California · Neder v. United States · United States v. Russell · Elcock v. Kmart Corp. · United States v. Ortega
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A trial court abuses its discretion when it acts in an arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable manner, its decision is not the product of a rational mental process leading to a reasoned decision, or it misinterprets or misapplies the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In Re JM“the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial processes to obtain a conviction.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Whether the government's conduct is so outrageous that it bars prosecution is a question of law, fully reviewable on appeal.”
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.