Hudson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably 753 So. 2d 29 - Rodriguez v. State (2000), 737 So. 2d 509 - Gaskin v. State (1999)
3 federal appellate · 23 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 Batson v. Kentucky · Wainwright v. Witt · Berkery v. Commissioner · Breast Implant Tort Represented By O'Quinn v. Dow Corning Corp. · McKinney v. Baldwin
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“permitted to argue, orally and by written submission, the consideration and assignment of weight of mitigating evidence”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our reading of the record shows that the trial court must consider, address, and weigh in detail the testimony of defense expert [psychiatrist ] (on direct and cross-examination) and other witnesses concerning Hudson's drug use, including the following considerations: whether Hudson was intoxicated by crack cocaine at the time of the murder; how Hudson reacted to crack cocaine in- gestión; whether the murder was related to crack cocaine intoxication; and whether the prior violent felonies were related to drug use. The trial court also must consider, address, and weigh resentencing testimony concerning a domestic dispute ... as well as testimony about Hudson's family history; Hudson’s degree of cooperation with law enforcement officers; Hudson’s character traits as demonstrated by various activities; and Hudson’s potential for adapting to a structured life in prison. In considering and weighing this evidence, the court shall consider cases from this Court which have evaluated the presentation of mitigation evidence in sentencing orders.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hardwick v. Crosby“lightly. If the trial court does not conduct such a deliberate inquiry and then document its findings and conclusions, this Court cannot be assured that it properly considered all mitigating evidence. Hudson, 708 So.2d at 259 (emphasis supplied) (quoting Walker, 707 So.2d at 319 ). We have characterized the process as one that requires the trial court to”
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.