Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 558 F.2d 292 - Hardwick v. Doolittle

Hardwick v. Doolittle’s Empirical Analysis

558 F.2d 292 · 1977

Citation profile

162
cited by 162 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

87 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 162 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2018 · most notably United States v. Phillips (1981), Texas v. McCullough (1986)

87 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 19 states

101019771980199020002010decided

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. § 1443 · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651

Relies on Blockburger v. United States · North Carolina v. Pearce · Townsend v. Sain · Fay v. Noia · Ashe v. Swenson

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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a]n increase in the severity or number of charges if done without vindictiveness may [be justified by simple] explanation.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “punish a pesky defendant for exercising his legal rights,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] prosecutor’s discretion to reindict a defendant is constrained by the due process clause. . . . [Office a prosecutor exercises his discretion to bring certain charges against a defendant, neither he nor his successor may, without explanation, increase the number of or severity of those charges in circumstances which suggest that the increase is retaliation for the defendant’s assertion of statutory or constitutional rights.”
    5 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.