State v. Hinkle’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2002 · most notably Hinkle v. State (1980), DeVoss v. State (2002)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 6 Cal. 3d 375 - People v. Burton · 2 Cal. 3d 180 - People v. Sears · 1 Cal. 3d 431 - People v. Wilson · United States v. Brown · 55 Cal. 2d 881 - People v. Hamilton
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[A] party to a criminal proceeding will not be permitted to complain of error with respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence where * * * he himself has acquiesced in, committed, or invited the error."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Abraham testified Patty telephoned at about 4:15 P. M., October 6, concerning a telephone call she had received. “The following record was then made: “ ‘Q. (By Mr. Hansen) And after you had the conversation with her, and as a result of that conversation, what did you say to her? A. I told her that I didn’t think that the defendant, Hinkle, would kill her. MR. HOLMES: (defendant’s counsel) Just a minute, I’m going to object to that, and I want to make a standing objection to this testimony. It is an attempt by the County to circumvent the hearsay rule and try to get in some testimony.’ “The belated objection interposed by defendant was clearly inadequate: “ ‘No motion to strike was made. No application was made to have the objection precede any answers. No excuse was offered for tardiness in objecting. No claim of error was preserved.’ “State v. Hendren, 216 N.W.2d 302, 305 (Iowa 1974) and citations.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Reese“It is obvious from the record that this report by one in the vortex of a fear-ridden neighborhood immediately prior to the homicide caused [the witness] to approach [the victim's] home and return at once in great excitement just before she heard [the victim's] door being broken down. . . . [W]e believe the statement in issue was admissible, for the purpose of showing it was said, under the Lyons [ State v. Lyons, 210 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa)] rule, in explaining the actions of these witnesses. 229 N.W.2d at 748, 749 . (Italics added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Leonard
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.