159 Ind. App. 59 - Bennett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 1991 · most notably 165 Ind. App. 369 - Winston v. State (1975), 162 Ind. App. 287 - Beech v. State (1974)
75 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 Wilson v. State · Kleinrichert v. State · Spivey v. State · Cooper v. State · 157 Ind. App. 385 - Farley v. Farley
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"While the motion to correct errors serves as the complaint on appeal, its primary purpose is to afford the trial court the opportunity to rectify errors it has committed. Bud Gates, Inc. v. Jackson (1970), 147 Ind. App. 123 , 258 N.E.2d 691 . Without being informed by a specific statement of the facts and grounds on which the claimed error is based, the trial judge cannot rectify his errors, if any. Were it otherwise, an appellant could propel himself into this or the Supreme Court by general statements of claimed errors, detailed at leisure after his motion to correct errors is overruled. Such a gigantic bootstrap by an appellant is precisely what the rules of appellate procedure are designed to avoid." (Emphasis supplied.) Bennett v. State, (1973) Ind. App., 304 N.E.2d 827, 829 .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“[S]uch motion shall separately specify as grounds therefor each error relied upon however and whenever arising up to the time of filing such motion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““(2) Content of Motion. In all cases in which a motion to correct error is made, such motion shall separately state the error or errors which are claimed. The error claimed is not required to be stated under, or in the language of the bases for the motion allowed by this rule, by statute, or by other law. Each claimed error shall be stated in specific rather than general terms, and shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts and grounds upon which the errors are based.” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Stanley v. Fisher
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.