Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 153 Ind. App. 532 - Graves v. State

153 Ind. App. 532 - Graves v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
June 1980
most recently cited

6 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Liston v. State · Robertson v. State · Kelley v. State · Buise v. State · Martin 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In order to be a conspiracy there must be an intelligent and deliberate agreement to commit the offense charged. It is sufficient if the minds of the parties meet understanding^ to bring about 'an intelligent and deliberate- agreement to do the acts and commit the offense, though the agreement is not manifest by any formal words. Concurrence óf sentí ment and co-operative conduct in an unlawful and criminal enterprise are the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy. There must be an agreement and there must be evidence to prove the agreement directly, or such a state of facts that an agreement may be legally inferred. Conspiracies cannot be established by a mere suspicion. Evidence of mere relationship or association between the parties does not show a conspiracy.” (Our emphasis.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““By the great weight of authority an indictment for burglary must allege directly the ownership of the building entered. Generally there are two reasons advanced for the majority rule: first, that the ownership should be pleaded for the purpose of showing that the building broken into was not the building of the accused or that the accused did not have the right to enter the building; and, second, that the ownership should be alleged for the purpose of so identifying the offense as to protect the accused against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.””
    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.