154 Ind. App. 474 - Glenn v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently April 2005 · most notably State v. Arnett (1978), Tewell v. State (1976)
37 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 Abel v. United States · Turner v. State · Vincent v. United States · Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Montgomery · FULLER 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It has long been the rule that it is the affirmative duty of the appellant to make a proper record and to bring a proper record before this court. Marcum v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 179 , 154 N.E.2d 376 . On review, we cannot consider any matter not contained in the record. Hansbrough v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 688 , 94 N.E.2d 534 . See also 10A Ind. Digest Criminal Law, Key No. 1128, p. 310. If Glenn felt that the record did not adequately disclose what transpired at the hearing on October 22, 1971, he had an adequate remedy in AP. 7.2(A) (3) (c) which states: “The only request for a speedy trial that does appear in the record is a letter dated December 8, 1971. Since the trial commenced within 50 days of this date, the trial court did not commit error by refusing to discharge the defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘. . . Defendant’s voluntary act of throwing the packets . . . [into the grass] must be deemed an abandonment of his interest therein. [Cases cited omitted.], and therefore subject to the Government’s appropriation. Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241 , 80 S.Ct. 683 , 4 L.Ed.2d 668 (1960). Once the packets were identified the officers were warranted in believing that a felony was being committed.’ United States v. Martin, supra, 386 F.2d at 215 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... Defendant's voluntary act of throwing the packets ... (into the grass) must be deemed an abandonment of his interest therein and therefore subject to the Government's appropriation. Once the packets were identified, the officers were warranted in believing that a felony was being committed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson v. State
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.