Lakes v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 1987
6 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 Wright v. State · Allman v. Malsbury · Beeler v. State · 138 Ind. App. 686 - Sikora v. BARNEY
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.
““The rule long established in this State is that an objection to a question must be full and comprehensive in pointing out the particular reason for the objection. Beeler v. State (1952), 250 Ind. 444 , 104 N.E.2d 744 ; Allman, et al. v. Masbury, et al. (1945), 224 Ind. 177 , 65 N.E.2d 106 . Further, the argument portion of the brief must approach the objection on the same ground as that made at the time of trial. We note that the objections made at the time of trial were not sufficiently comprehensive to present any question to the trial court, and that the appellant has attempted to enlarge upon these objections in his appeal which is not permitted. By reason of the foregoing, no question is before us concerning either the objections made during the trial or the trial court’s ruling on such objections.””
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.