Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 IND 401 - Crum v. State

Crum v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1897

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
10
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 53 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Ashton v. Anderson (1972), Wallace v. State (1899)

11 federal appellate · 53 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1501897190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Wilson · Mackin v. United States · Loomis v. . People · People v. Rae · Fleming v. State

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Appellants complain, finally, that the court erred in the admission of evidence of other like crimes committed by them about the time of committing the crime here charged. This evidence was quite proper in order to show the intention with which the acts charged as criminal were committed. The appellants were not tried or punished for the other offenses committed; but by the evidence given of such like transactions by them about the same time the jury were the better able to apply the evidence given as to the offense charged.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It is true that such evidence of similar offenses is more frequently received in cases of forgery and counterfeiting than in any others. This, however, is only because in such cases the commission of other like acts tends more frequently to show the intent with which the act charged was done. In principle there can be no reason why in any case the intent with which an act was done may not be proved by competent and pertinent evidence, even though proof may thus incidentally be made of other offenses.””
    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.