366 So. 2d 318 - Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 74 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably South Dakota v. Neville (1983), 103 Ill. 2d 226 - People v. Tisler (1984)
1 federal appellate · 74 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Schmerber v. State of California · Griffin v. California · Malloy v. Hogan · People v. Ellis · Campbell v. Superior Court
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We feel, however, that such evidence is probative and should be presented to the jury for their consideration rather than excluding it altogether. Any circumstances tending to show the refusal was conditioned upon factors other than consciousness of guilt may properly be considered by the jury in determining the weight to attach to the refusal."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Hanks · Felgate v. State“[t]hat in all criminal prosecutions, the accused . . . shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself. . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where a defendant is being accused of intoxication and is not intoxicated, the taking of a reasonably reliable chemical test for intoxication should establish that he is not intoxicated. On the other hand, if he is intoxicated, the taking of such a test will probably establish that he is intoxicated. Thus, if he is not intoxicated, such a test will provide evidence for him; but, if he is intoxicated, the test will provide evidence against him. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that a refusal to take such a test indicates the defendant’s fear of the results of the test and his consciousness of guilt, especially where he is asked his reason for such refusal and he gives no reason which would indicate that his refusal had no relation to such consciousness of guilt.”
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.