Hooks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably State v. Ceballos (2003), Gerill Corp. v. Jack L. Hargrove Builders, Inc. (1989)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 95 state decisions — followed in 12 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 3500
Relies on Faretta v. California · Aguilar v. Texas · Brinegar v. United States · Jones v. United States · Griffin v. California
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor — indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Robinson · Hughes v. State““Defendants misconstrue the nature of the intent required. The inquiry under § 271 is not whether each accomplice had the specific intent to commit murder, but whether he intended to promote or facilitate the principal’s conduct constituting the offense. The defendants did not have to specifically intend that the result, a killing, should occur. As long as the result was a foreseeable consequence of the underlying felonious conduct their intent as accomplices includes the intent to facilitate the happening of this result.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Claudio v. State · Martin v. State“`Concrete firsthand evidence that the items sought are in the place to be searched is not always required in a search warrant.... The question is whether one would normally expect to find those items at that place.... If so, then that inference will suffice to allow the valid issuance of a search warrant for that place.... We think it clear that [the defendant's] residence would be a logical place to search for the weapon and clothing used in the crime.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Ward · Blount v. State
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.