Hunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Loserth v. State (1998), St. George v. State (2007)
55 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 Florida v. Royer · Florida v. Bostick · California v. Hodari D. · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]s a general rule, the appellate courts, including this Court, should afford almost total deference to a trial court’s determination of the historical facts that the record supports especially when the trial court’s fact findings are based on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. The appellate courts, including this Court, should afford the same amount of deference to trial courts’ rulings on ‘application of law to fact questions,’ also known as ‘mixed questions of law and fact,’ if the ultimate resolution of those questions turns on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. The appellate courts may review de novo ‘mixed questions of law and fact’ not falling within this category. This Court may exercise its discretion to review de novo these decisions by the intermediate appellate courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Vargas v. State · Loserth v. State“the [historical] facts will then be viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The resolution of the mixed question of law and fact presented here — whether the appellant was “detained” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment — does not “turn” on an evaluation of credibility and demeanor. In other words, even if we believed everything testified to by the State’s witnesses, that testimony may not add wp to a finding that appellant was not detained under the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Loserth 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.