Powers v. Hauck’s Empirical Analysis
399 F.2d 322 · 1968
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 2002 · most notably 14 Cal. 4th 580 - People v. Eubanks (1996), Boyer v. City of Orlando (1968)
23 federal appellate · 10 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 Witherspoon v. Illinois · 163 Tex. Crim. 352 - Bingham v. State · 160 Tex. Crim. 561 - Loshe v. State · 159 Tex. Crim. 286 - Phillips 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The mere participation of a special prosecutor alone is not sufficient grounds to show a denial of due process, without some additional showing of a violation of the rules relating to prosecuting attorneys.” 399 F.2d at 325 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Due process is not denied by permitting a privately retained attorney to participate in a criminal prosecution when the district attorney retains control and management of the prosecution.” Id. at 428 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The fact that the law of Texas provides for death as a possible punishment for the offense of murder with malice does not, in and of itself, or under the circumstances of this case, constitute cruel and unusual punish ment, or deny equal protection of the laws.” p. 325.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hackathorn v. Decker
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.