Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently April 1992
2 district · 6 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Glasser v. United States · Bruton v. United States · Jackson v. Denno · California v. Green
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As to conflicts between these defendants, they have not identified any in the legal sense which was the product of or which resulted from joint representation; nor have they shown prejudice as a result thereof, [footnote omitted] Although courts do not engage in nice calculations as to the quantum of prejudice involved, Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942), and Lollar v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 200 , 376 F.2d 243 (1967), it is settled law that some conflict must be established. United States v. Lovano, 2 Cir., 420 F.2d 769 (1970); Lugo v. United States, supra [ 350 F.2d 858 ]. None has been shown here.” (Hill v. State, 316 A.2d 557, 558 (Del.1974).)”
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.