Hollis v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
571 F.2d 685 · 1978
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2012 · most notably Estelle v. Smith (1981), United States v. Fatico (1978)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 11 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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · United States v. Wade · Townsend v. Sain · Schmerber v. State of California
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]here is no authority binding upon us which holds that the procedure in proceedings relating solely to punishment, even when an additional fact has to be established, must conform precisely to those in proceedings relating to guilt, and we see no basis in principle for so holding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are wholly unconvinced that even if the Specht Court had had the benefit of the later Duncan decision, it would have required Colorado to afford a jury trial under its Sex Offenders Act. One reason is the difference in history and tradition recounted above; the importance of this was underscored in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 548 , 91 S.Ct. 1976 , [1987], 29 L.Ed.2d 647 (1971), where, particularly due to such a difference in history, the Supreme Court held there was no right to a jury trial at juvenile delinquency proceedings despite its holding in In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , 87 S.Ct. 1428 , 18 L.Ed.2d 527 (1967), that the due process clause applies to such proceedings. A second consists of the considerations quoted from the Task Force Report. A third is the difference in the jury's office. There still is validity in the distinction drawn by Mr. Justice Black in Williams, 337 U.S. at 246-47 , 69 S.Ct. at 1083 , between the trial's role of determining "whether a defendant is guilty of having engaged in certain criminal conduct of which he has been specifically accused," using "rules of evidence... which narrowly confine the trial contest to evidence that is strictly relevant to the particular offense charged," and the task of determining whether a defendant is a danger to society or will benefit from institutional treatment... . There is no authority binding upon us which holds that the procedure in proceedings relating solely to punishment, even when an additiona”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person convicted of assault in the second degree for an assault upon another with intent to commit the felony of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sodomy in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree or carnal abuse may be punished by imprisonment for an indeterminate term, the minimum of which shall be one day and the maximum of which shall be the duration of his natural life.”
1 later decision 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.