Hawley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
78 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably State v. Coon (1999), Elson v. State (1983)
78 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 Bruton v. United States · Pointer v. Texas · California v. Green · Dutton v. Evans · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Crump v. State · Hohman v. State“(d) Change of Judge as a Matter of Right. In all courts of the state, a judge may be peremptorily challenged as follows: (1) Entitlement. In any criminal case in superior or district court, the prosecution and the defense shall each be entitled as matter of right to one change of judge. When multiple defendants are unable to agree upon the judge to hear the case, the trial judge may, in the interest of justice, give them more than one change as a matter of right; the prosecutor shall be entitled to the same number of changes as all the defendants combined.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Murdock v. State · Moore v. State“(1) the declaration contained no assertion of a past fact, ... (2) the declarant had personal knowledge of the identity and role of participants in the crime; (3) the possibility that the declarant was relying upon faulty recollection was remote; and (4) the circumstances under which the statements were made did not provide reason to believe that the declarant had misrepresented the defendant’s involvement in the crime.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Stumpf v. State · Arnold 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.