People v. Hudy’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2011 · most notably Carmell v. Texas (2000), Jeffrey Washington v. Sunny Schriver, Superintendent, Wallkill Correctional Facility (2001)
8 federal appellate · 5 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.
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sometimes [ex post facto laws] respected the crime, by declaring acts to be treason, which were not treason, when committed; at other times, they violated the rules of evidence (to supply a deficiency of legal proof) by admitting one witness, when the existing law required two; by receiving evidence without oath; or the oath of the wife against the husband; or other testimony, which the courts of justice would not admit; at other times they inflicted punishments, where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment; and in other cases, they inflicted greater punishment, than the law annexed to the offence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Carmell v. Texas“Defendant had ample notice that the conduct in which he engaged was prohibited and that, if convicted, he could be punished within certain legislatively prescribed guidelines. He had no legitimate right to rely on a procedural rule that affected neither his culpability nor his expected punishment but instead merely made the prosecution’s case against him more difficult to prove.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Lindquist v. State“Any statutory alteration of the legal rules of evidence which would authorize conviction upon less proof, in amount or degree, than was required when the offence was committed”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carmell v. Texas
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.