Hodge v. Hurley’s Empirical Analysis
426 F.3d 368 · 2005
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably 115 Ohio St. 3d 22 - State v. Mundt (2007), United States v. Warshak (2010)
29 federal appellate · 8 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Williams v. Taylor · Berger v. United States · United States v. Young · Lindh v. Murphy
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is patently improper for a prosecutor either to comment on the credibility of a witness or to express a personal belief that a particular witness is lying.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not coupled with a more detailed analysis of the evidence ... convey an impression to the jury that they should simply trust the State's judgment”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.”
3 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.