Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 Ga. App. 652 - Hughes v. State

266 Ga. App. 652 - Hughes v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 2020

16 state decisions

120200420102020decided

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 Kolokouris v. State · Rickman v. State · 224 Ga. App. 645 - Lawson v. State · 253 Ga. App. 307 - Arnold v. State · 230 Ga. App. 500 - Schmidt v. Feldman

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[T]he standard for effectiveness of counsel does not require a lawyer to anticipate changes in the law or pursue novel theories of defense. [Grier] has not cited, and we have not found, any case addressing a similar . . . challenge to OCGA §[§ 16-6-2 and 16-6-4]. Trial counsel’s failure to raise this novel legal argument does not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[u]nder Georgia law, a motion to quash is not a proper method for attacking an indictment or accusation for any defect not appearing on its face. Thus, the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the offense charged is not in issue on a motion to quash. As reasoned by the Supreme Court, we know of no rule of law that would permit an indictment to be quashed on the ground that the state’s subsequent proof might not authorize a conviction for the offense charged in the indictment. Such a rule would be incapable of application for the reason that at this stage of the proceedings — post indictment, pre-trial — no one knows what the state’s proof will show.”
    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.