Huffman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2018
2 federal appellate · 7 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 Crosswhite v. State · State v. Mountjoy · State v. Keeble · Jefferson v. State · State v. McCarver
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(8) That the court and its officers at the time of movant’s arrest, hearings, trials and sentencing were prejudice (sic) against and their emotions toward this movant incensed against this movant, who was then and there a child of 15 years of age and that said movant was pressed into early hearings and trials by the Court, its officers, and counsel without the benefit of proper legal advice and protection; “(9) That this movant was not afforded a preliminary hearing in said cause as required by the laws of the State of Missouri for the reasons that no proper record and transcript of the proceedings and testimony given was kept as required by the laws of the State of Missouri; “(10) That the arrest, alleged plea of guilty and sentencing of this movant were not conducted and had as required by the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Missouri, or the laws thereof; “(11) That movant was not afforded a fair and impartial preliminary hearing of the 16th day of September, 1946, as required by the laws of the State of Missouri and was not afforded a fair and impartial hearing in the Circuit Court of Howell County, Missouri, on the 8th day of October, 1946; “(12) That the alleged available affidavits, warrants and court records and available transcripts of all proceedings in the Justice of the Peace Court of Howell County, Missouri are mere shams and are not adequate to sustain the orders, charges or sentence imposed; “(13) That the alleged available a”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Huffman v. Missouri“Appellant had no right to the enforcement of the rule excluding witnesses from the courtroom. Its application is a matter resting within the sound discretion of the trial judge”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lynch 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.