Hunt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1993 · most notably Godinez v. Moran (1993), Aaron v. State (1960)
2 federal appellate · 69 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Grosjean v. American Press Co. · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey · United States v. Monia · Commonwealth v. Millen
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is recognized by good authority that the court in its sound discretion may introduce witnesses in a criminal case, though they are not offered by either the state or defendant, especially so as to expert witnesses, originally regarded as ‘amici curiae,’ from the earliest period. 3 Chamberlayne on Evidence, section 2376, 2552-2570; State v. Horne, 171 N.C. 787 , 88 S.E. 433 ; Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850 , 130 So. 582 (9); Buchanan v. State, 95 Fla. 301 , 116 So. 275 ; Hall v. State, 136 Fla. 644 , 187 So. 392, 407 (44, 45); 16 Corpus Juris 846, Note 69; 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1017; 70 Corpus Juris 566; § 723, Note 61 et seq.; Gomila v. United States, 5 Cir., 146 F.2d 372 ; United States v. Guertler, 2 Cir., 147 F.2d 796 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“facts ascertained and opinions formed by an examination [performed without the defendant's] consent or when [the] consent to the examination was improperly obtained are not inadmissible on that account.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hubbard v. State · Marsden v. Moore“for another person to do an act against the will of the defendant which relates to his person, and thereby cause to be revealed matter material as evidence against him,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. State · Marsden v. Moore
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.