Hicks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 90 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 98 later decisions — most recently November 1987 · most notably In Re Lindley (1947), Kiefer v. State (1958)
8 federal appellate · 90 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 Hauk v. State · Commonwealth v. Costley · Mack v. State · Cooper v. State · Stephenson 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 98 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The third error complained of by the appellant is that the court erred in permitting John Poholsky to answer the following question over appellant’s objection: —‘Did Kuhlman do anything at all before you cut the head and hands off?’ for the reason that said statement was the statement of an alleged co-conspirator made after the consummation of the alleged conspiracy. The conspiracy in the instant case was not only to murder Harry R. Miller, but it was also to mutilate and dispose of the body after the murder. Therefore the declarations and acts of a conspirator during the existence of the conspiracy and until it is completed are admissible against the co-conspirators. (Citations omitted). There can be no question under the evidence in the instant case that part of the conspiracy was to mutilate and dispose of the body. This was just as much a part of the conspiracy as was the murder and the disposal of the body was in furtherance of the conspiracy.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wallace v. State““The confession of a defendant made under inducement, with all the circumstances, may be given in evidence against him, except when made under the influence of fear produced by threats or by intimidation or undue influence; but a confession made under inducement is not sufficient to warrant a conviction without corroborating evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Eiffe v. State““Neither does the fact that a defendant, at the time of making a confession, is held without any process or lawful right require that it be rejected. Balbo v. People (1880), 80 N. Y. 484 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. State
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.