Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 315 U.S. 411 - Hysler v. State of Florida

Hysler v. State of Florida’s Empirical Analysis

315 U.S. 411 · 1942

Citation profile

321
cited by 321 later decisions
13
cited 13 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
December 2025
most recently cited

85 federal appellate · 10 district · 127 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 321 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Napue v. People of the State of Illinois (1959), United State v. Morgan (1954)

85 federal appellate · 10 district · 127 state decisions — followed in 24 states

810194219501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Mooney v. Holohan · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Cannon v. United States · Brown v. State of Mississippi

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

  1. “* * * In this collateral attack upon the judgment of conviction, the petitioner bases his claim on the recantation of one of the witnesses against him. He cannot, of course, contend that mere recantation of testimony is in itself ground for invoking the Due Process Clause against a conviction. However, if Florida through her responsible officials knowingly used false testimony which was extorted from a witness `by violence and torture', one convicted may claim the protection of the Due Process Clause against a conviction based upon such testimony.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * * * A petitioner must ‘make a full disclosure of the specific facts relied on,’ and not merely his conclusions ‘as to the nature and effect of such facts.’ The proof must enable the appellate court to ‘ascertain whether, under settled principles pertaining to such writ, the facts alleged would afford, at least prima facie just ground for an application to the lower court for a writ of error coram nobis.’ * * * ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““If a state, whether by the active conduct or the connivance of the prosecution, obtains a conviction through the use of perjured testimony, it violates civilized standards for the trial of guilt or innocence and thereby deprives an accused of liberty without due process of law.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.