State v. Hollman’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2003 · most notably Faretta v. California (1975), Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District (2000)
6 federal appellate · 35 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2112 · 18 U.S.C. § 2113 · 18 U.S.C. § 2115 · 18 U.S.C. § 2421 (White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910 (Mann Act))
Relies on Bell v. United States · Betts v. Brady · Braverman v. United States · Prince v. United States · Ex Parte Nielsen
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * Rule 4 of this court, prescribing the contents of the transcript of record on appeal, does not require inclusion therein of a statement that the jury was sworn. Section 3 of that rule expressly provides that the ‘statement’ shall be concise and shall contain nothing that is not necessary to a proper understanding and decision of the questions to be decided. Cf. Spartan Mills v. Law, 186 S. C. 61, 194 S. E. 653 ; Franks v. Anthony, 231 S. C. 191, 97 S. E. (2d) 891 . The record before us discloses no factual basis to support the conclusion either that the jury was not duly sworn or that the fact of such swearing is not shown in the record of the trial in the office of the clerk of the lower court. No such issue is made by any of the ‘Grounds For Appeal’. No such defect in the trial record is to be presumed. On the contrary, presumption is always that a public officer has faithfully and correctly performed his official duties. 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, Section 170, p. 174; 43 Am. Jur., Public Officers, Section 511, p. 254; Howell v. Littlefield, 211 S. C. 462, 46 S. E. (2d) 47 ; Whitmire v. Cass, 213 S. C. 230, 49 S. E. (2d) 1 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. BRITT“essence of and inseparate from his resistance of arrest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stevenson 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.