Hall v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2008
13 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 Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Leary v. United States · County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) that the facts giving rise to the presumption must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt; (B) that if such facts are proven beyond a reasonable doubt the jury may find that the element of the offense sought to be presumed exists, but it is not bound to so find; (C) that even though the jury may find the existence of such element, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the other elements of the offense charged; and (D) if the jury has a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a fact or facts giving rise to the presumption, the presumption fails and the jury shall not consider the presumption for any purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Regalado v. State · Green v. State“A person who promotes or wholesale promotes obscene material ... or possesses the same with intent to promote or wholesale promote it in the course of his business is presumed to do with knowledge of its content and character.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hoyle v. State“43.21. Definitions "... "`Obscene device' means a device including a dildo or artificial vagina, designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Yorko 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.