State v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis
1901
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently June 1974
2 federal appellate · 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.
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . We think our cases go only to the extent of holding that the trial judge may be required either to sign a particular bill, or show cause why he will not do so, but they do not go to the extent that he may be required to sign one which he states is not correct. The ultimate decision as to what a bill of exceptions should contain rests with the trial judge. And this is so to the extent that he may even decline to sign a bill consented to and presented by the attorneys on both sides, and he may change it when both parties insist that it is already correct, in his sound discretion, and in order that it may embody the facts as he understands them. Beavers v. The State, 58 Ind., 530 ; 3 Enc. PI. & Prac., 446. “He may not refuse to sign a bill without more, but must sign one presented, or propose corrections, or sign what he deems á proper and true bill. 3 Enc. PI. & Pr., p. 448.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.