Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently March 2008
5 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 Douglas v. Alabama · 321 So. 2d 453 - McDonald v. State · Rankin v. State · Lawrence v. L Wainwright · 157 So. 2d 862 - Kaplow 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is a violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment for the trial court to permit the jury to hear an individual's extrajudicial statement inculpating the defendant, if the individual refuses to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, and if the refusal has not been procured by the defendant. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 , 85 S.Ct. 1074 , 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). Cf. Rankin v. State, Fla. 1962, 143 So.2d 193 . McDonald clearly refused to testify, and McDonald's tape clearly inculpated the appellant. The state has not asserted that appellant procured McDonald's refusal to testify. The trial court should therefore have sustained appellant's objection to having the tape played before the jury."”
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.