163 Ind. App. 644 - Snelling v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 2009
7 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 Summerlin v. State · 153 Ind. App. 648 - Palmer v. State · LeFlore 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"None of the language contained in that definition implies that there is no deception if the person deceived 'in the exercise of reasonable care should have known' that the representations made to him were untrue, and Snelling has cited no authority supporting such an interpretation. On the contrary the statutory definition places upon the person who has created a false impression ... the burden of dispelling it. [Footnote omitted.]"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Snelling’-s- argument .on appeal is different from-the argument raised in the memorandum to his motion to quash. In fact, the argument on appeal is founded on the second rhetorical paragraph of that motion while the memorandum is addressed solely to the first rhetorical paragraph. “Criminal Rule No. 3 of the Indiana Rules of Procedure provides in pertinent part: ‘(A) Motion to Quash — Memorandum. In all cases where a motion is made to quash an indictment' or affidavit, a memorandum shall be filed therewith stating specifically wherein such indictment or affidavit does not state the offense with sufficient certainty, or wherein the facts stated in the indictment or affidavit do not constitute a public offense .... ‘The party so filing such motion shall be deemed to have waived his right thereafter to question the-indictment or affidavit on any ground not so specified in the memorandum.’ “Snelling’s failure to specifically question the indictment on the ground he now asserts constituted a waiver of -that ground. . ' “Inasmuch as no argument is made on any -issue presented in Snelling’s memorandum the sufficiency of the indictment is not before us.” 326 N.E.2d at 608-9 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“even if the victim, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known the representations made to him were untrue. The Snell ing cases are distinguishable. There, the court said:”
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.