Hill v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Davenport v. State (1978), Ruedas v. State (1979)
29 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 Chambers v. Maroney · Mempa v. Rhay · Lichter v. United States · Ng Kam Fook v. P a Esperdy · Hyser v. Reed
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Art. 26.04. Court Shall Appoint Counsel “(a) Whenever the court determines at an arraignment or at any time prior to arraignment that an accused charged with a felony or a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment is too poor to employ counsel, the court shall appoint one or more practicing attorneys to defend him. In making the determination, the court shall require the accused to file an affidavit, and may call witnesses and hear any relevant testimony or other evidence. “(b) The appointed counsel is entitled to ten days to prepare for trial, but may waive the time by written notice, signed by the counsel and the accused.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maxwell v. State““... [T]he plain meaning of Article 42.12 is that the provisions of Article 26.04 paragraph (a) shall be followed when the court appoints counsel. However, nothing in Article 42.12 purports to incorporate Article 26.04 paragraph (b), which provides for the ten day preparation requirement. To the contrary, all such procedure is governed by Section 8 of Article 42.12, which does not contain such a provision. “We therefore hold that, absent a showing of harm, nothing in Article 42.12, V.A.C.C.P., or the United States Constitution requires a preparation period of ten days prior to a revocation hearing.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Maxwell v. State“A probation revocation hearing is not ... a criminal prosecution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davenport 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.