State v. Hookfin’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 2011
3 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 Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota · Bokum Resources Corp. v. Long Island Lighting Co. · 448 So. 2d 645 - State v. Davis · 439 So. 2d 377 - State v. Union Tank Car Co. · 539 So. 2d 1222 - State v. Azar
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the intentional alteration, movement, removal, or addition of any object or substance ... [a]t the location of any incident which the perpetrator knows or has good reason to believe will be the subject of any investigation by state, local, or United States law enforcement officers.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the specific intent of distorting the results of any criminal investigation or proceeding.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“actual or potential present, past, or future criminal proceeding”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.