Hooper v. Perini’s Empirical Analysis
641 F.2d 445 · 1981
Citation profile
16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
May 1989
most recently cited
13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Wainwright v. Sykes · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Patterson v. New York
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“due process of law does not preclude a state, once having proved the fundamental elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, from then placing the burden of proving an affirmative defense on the accused. In this setting, an instruction shifting the burden of proof does not remove from the prosecution the full burden resting upon it under In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1072 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970), but simply reflects a legislative evaluation of a party's superior access to the proof. [ 641 F. 2d at 447 ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[s]ince proof of self-defense would clearly negate the malice element.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smart v. Leeke“[n]o person shall purposely and maliciously kill another.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. White v. Arn
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.