Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 324 ARK 169 - Hudgens v. State

Hudgens v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2026

10 state decisions

401996200020102020decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Texas v. McCullough · Bolden v. State · Bangs v. State · Smith v. State

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

  1. “Moreover, Hudgens testified that he was detained for more than twelve hours before he was allowed a phone call and before he was released from custody. He is in essence complaining of an illegal detention. We have addressed the effect of such a violation of Ark. R. Crim. P. 8.1 in Bolden v. State, 262 Ark. 718 , 561 S.W.2d 281 (1978), by stating that a defendant is not entitled to a dismissal of the charge on which he is arrested when the rule is contravened. It is also well settled that an illegal arrest or detention does not void a subsequent conviction. See Cook v. State, 274 Auk. 244, 623 S.W.2d 820 (1981); Bolden, supra.”
    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.