Hatch v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 2019
1 federal appellate · 20 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Coleman v. Thompson · Murray v. Carrier
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [w]ere not and could not have been raised in a direct appeal, and (2) support a conclusion either that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the errors or that the defendant is factually innocent.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Mitchell v. State · Rogers v. State“However, it must also be remembered that the term denotes more than simply the law of the land or the law as it was at the time the constitution took effect: For that would seem to deny to the legislature the power to alter, change or amend the law. Yet we know that it is every day's practice for the law-making department of the government to repeal old laws, enact new, and change remedies. The principle does not demand that the laws existing at any point of time shall be irrepealable, or that any forms of remedies shall necessarily continue. It refers to certain fundamental rights which that system of justice, of which ours is a derivative, has always recognized. If any of these are disregarded, in the proceedings by which a person is condemned to the loss of life, liberty or property, then the deprivation has not been by "due course of law."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[l]egislatures have a wide range of discretion when passing laws which have the effect of treating some differently from others ... To show an equal protection violation Petitioner must show that 22 O.S. Supp.1995, § 1089 impermissibly interferes with his exercise of a fundamental right or operates to the peculiar disadvantage of him as a member of a suspect class. If a petitioner fails to make that showing (which requires application of the strict scrutiny standard), he must prove that the statute is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest, also called the `rational relationship test.'”
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.