166 Ind. App. 133 - Stein v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently October 2012
19 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 Fauls v. United States · Toft v. Ketchum · Randolph v. State · Joyce v. Whitney · 24 Ill. App. 3d 152 - People v. Johnson
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our Supreme Court has held that a trial judge has the discretionary power to disqualify himself sua sponte whenever the existence of any semblance of judicial bias or impropriety in a proceeding in his court comes to his attention See: State ex rel. Mosshammer v. Allen Superior Court (1965), 246 Ind. 866 , 206 N.E.2d 139 ; Joyce et al. v. Whitney et al. (1877), 57 Ind. 550 . “Additionally, where a judge has an actual prejudice jn reference to a cause, or is interested in the litigation or related to a party, justice requires that he refuse to hear such cause. State ex rel. Mosshammer v. Allen Superior Court, supra; State ex rel. Purcell v. Circuit Court (1950), 228 Ind. 410 , 92 N.E.2d 843 ; State ex rel. Parker v. Vosloh, Judge (1944), 222 Ind. 518 , 54 N.E.2d 650 ; Joyce et al. v. Whitney et al., supra; Folger v. Barnard (1919), 73 Ind. App. 523 , 125 N.E. 460 . (Transfer denied.) “While the facts outlined hereinabove would be a sufficient basis for a discretionary self-disqualification by a trial judge, it cannot be said that the record before us contains any objective evidence of actual prejudice by the trial judge so as to require his disqualification to ensure a fair trial. “Furthermore, the facts relied upon by Stein in alleging judicial prejudice were known to him prior to the trial of this cause. If the prejudice alleged by appellant existed, he could have obtained a change of venue from the trial judge at such time under the . . . Indiana Rules of Procedure . . .” ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“... the discretionary power to disqualify himself sua sponte whenever the existence of any semblance of judicial bias or impropriety in a proceeding in his court comes to his attention.”
2 later decisions 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.