5 Smith & H. 63 - Hunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably State v. Hales (1961), State v. Barber (1988)
6 federal appellate · 23 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.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Certainly, no theory is to be favorably considered which recognizes in public officers the right to determine in their own interest that an act passed for their control is invalid. If those individuals affected by laws are to be conceded the right to disregard and nullify them whenever they believe them to be unconstitutional, or are so advised, anarchy would ensue. The drunken driver, for example, would proceed on his way and meet prosecution with the answer that he had no criminal intent, because he believed and was advised that the act was unconstitutional.” Hunter v. State, 158 Tenn. 63 , 12 S.W.2d 361, 362 (1928); 61 A.L.R. 1148 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Thorstad““No case examined justifies a violation of a law on the ground that the accused believed and was advised by counsel that it was unconstitutional. As before suggested, such a holding would be productive of disastrous results, opening a way of escape from prosecution for the criminally inclined through a door held ajar by ignorant, biased, or purchasable advis-ors.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Thorstad“The fact that a person honestly believes that he has a right to do what the law declares to be illegal will not affect the criminality of the act. The advice of counsel furnishes no excuse to a person for violating the law, and cannot be relied upon as a defense in a criminal action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Brewer
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.