Case Citator › Hopt v. People of Territory of Utah

Hopt v. People of Territory of Utah

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
110 U.S. 574
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
38 of 38
Citing cases (total)
38
Treatment dates
1988–2003
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Hopt v. People of Territory of Utah has been limited: all 38 flagged citations have been read, and the 2 confirmed treatments are listed below. The limits concern its discussion of ex post facto changes to proof and its language about a defendant's nonwaivable presence at a capital trial.
More on how this was screened

Courts continued to apply its other holdings in the opinions reviewed.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

38 later cases cite Hopt v. People of Territory of Utah; 38 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Hopt v. People of Territory of Utah?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The New York Court of Appeals confined Hopt's discussion of reductions in the amount of proof to changes in the prosecution's burden of proof, allowing a repealed corroboration requirement to apply to earlier crimes.

    People v. Hudy · New York Court of Appeals · filed

    Plainly, Hopt’s reference to procedural changes reducing the "degree” of required proof meant changes in the standard that the fact finder must use to evaluate whether guilt has been established ... The legislation abolishing the corroboration requirement in this case plainly does not alter the People’s burden of convincing the fact finder beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt. Hence, it is not the type of procedural change that was contemplated in Hopt and Calder.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Eleventh Circuit held that Hopt did not clearly establish a nonwaivable right for a capital defendant to remain mentally competent at trial after self-induced incompetence.

    Moore v. Campbell · Eleventh Circuit · filed

    In Hopt and Lewis, cases which involved capital defendants, the Supreme Court suggested that a nonwaivable right of presence exists generally in a criminal case. Over time, however, the rule announced in these cases has been eroded to an extent that it is no longer clear that they are good law at all. ... Based upon the lack of clarity of the Supreme Court precedents, we cannot conclude that the state court’s determination that a capital defendant in Alabama can forfeit his right to be competent -- that is mentally present -- at trial was contrary to or was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Hopt v. People of Territory of Utah and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace