State v. Hooker’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 1992
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on State v. Johns · State v. McQuinn · State v. Hardy · State v. Summers · State v. Saussele
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“had not been satisfied? and 2) did the trial court err in refusing to excuse venireman Bedell for cause? The answer to both questions is no, as we determined on direct appeal. We have reviewed the record again and reach the same conclusion we reached on direct appeal. Consequently, the judgment is affirmed. FLANIGAN, P.J., and MAUS, J., concur. . Inasmuch as sentence was pronounced prior to January 1, 1988, and this proceeding was pending before the effective date of present Rule 29.15, the appeal is governed by the law applicable to proceedings under former Rule 27.26. Rule 29.15(m). .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hooker 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.