Hodgdon v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
365 F.2d 679 · 1966
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Spinelli v. United States (1967), Harold Hanger v. United States of America, Gale Mixen v. United States of America, Loretta Meyer v. United States (1968)
33 federal appellate · 2 district · 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 111 (Federal Judiciary Protection Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1503 · 28 U.S.C. § 144
Relies on Aguilar v. Texas · Jones v. United States · United States v. Ventresca · Giordenello v. United States · Pollard v. United States
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““insure the presence of the defendant, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, the weight of the evidence against him, the financial ability of the defendant to give bail and the character of the defendant.” Hodgdon v. U. S., 365 F.2d 679 (8th Cir. 1966), cert. denied 385 U.S. 1029 , 87 S.Ct. 759 , 17 L.Ed.2d 676 (1967).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The mere financial inability of the defendant to post an amount otherwise meeting the aforesaid standard does not automatically indicate excessiveness. The purpose for bail cannot in all instances be served by only accommodating the defendant’s pocketbook and his desire to be free pending possible conviction.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]o person should be entitled to resist with deadly force a marshal operating under color of authority, even though it is later found that no actual authority existed. Adequate legal protection exists against unlawful searches and arrests.”
1 later decision 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.