Hill v. Maloney’s Empirical Analysis
927 F.2d 646 · 1990
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably United States v. DeMasi (1994), Curtis v. Duval (1997)
26 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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 Chapman v. State of California · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Morissette v. United States · Sandstrom v. Montana · Mullaney v. Wilbur
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“determine whether other language in the charge explains the infirm language sufficiently so that there is no reasonable likelihood that the jury believed it must find malice if it found petitioner did the [killing without excuse or justification].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] mandatory presumption instructs the jury that it must infer an 'elemental fact' such as intent or malice from proof of a 'basic fact' such as a knowing act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. Butler · Koonce v. Pepe“Bembury's only defense was his alibi, that he did not commit the murder.... Bembury's failure to argue the issue of malice amounted to a concession of that issue, because, as in Hill, `intent was never put in issue, and indeed, could hardly have been contested.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Medina v. Matesanz
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.