Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 404 P.2d 644 - Hoffman v. State

Hoffman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
4
states following
November 2007
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently November 2007 · most notably State v. Erickson (1978), Campbell v. State (1970)

2 federal appellate · 37 state decisions

19019651970198019902000decided

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 Fay v. Noia · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Douglas v. People of State of California · Lane v. Brown · Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar

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

  1. “Notice and grounds for revocation of suspension. When sentence has been suspended, it shall not be revoked except for good cause shown. In all proceedings for the revocation of a suspended sentence, the defendant is entitled to reasonable notice and the right to be represented by counsel.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “* * * that all persons are equal and entitled to equal rights, opportunities, and protection under the law * * *.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In short, we cannot ascribe to our legislature an intent to draw a distinction, along economic lines, as to which probationers were to be accorded this statutory right to counsel. To construe AS 12.55.110 as embodying an intended dichotomy between probationers unable to afford counsel and others would, in our opinion, render the statute repugnant to the Equal Protection Clauses of both the Federal and Alaska Constitutions. [Footnote omitted.] [41]”
    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.