People v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Borden v. United States (2021), Griego v. People (2001)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 35 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 Morissette v. United States · State v. Salz · Maestas v. District Court · People v. DelGuidice · Valdez v. People
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In addition to the actor's knowledge and experience, a court may infer the actor's subjective awareness of a risk from what a reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“To establish probable cause in a preliminary hearing, the prosecution must "present evidence sufficient to induce a person of ordinary prudence and caution to entertain a reasonable belief that the defendant committed the crime charged." The prosecution does not have to establish ... even the likelihood that the defendant committed the crime. ... The court must view all the evidence and draw all inferences in favor of the prosecution, and the court must not accept the defendant's version of the facts over the legitimate inferences that can be drawn from the prosecution's evidence. The court should not review the merits of the prosecution's factual assertions because that function should be left for the trier of fact if the case goes to trial. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Mucklow“• “A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.” § 18—1— 501(8). • “A person acts with criminal negligence when, through a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists.” § 18-1-501(3), C.R.S.2011. • Careless driving requires that the defendant drive a motor vehicle “without due regard.” § 42-4-1402(1).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. People v. Zweygardt
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.