166 Ind. App. 310 - Ruby v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently October 2013
9 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 Blackburn v. State · Wilson v. State · Hoskins v. State · Robbins v. State · Thomas 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(A) Disability and unavailability after the trial or hearing. The judge who presides at the trial of a cause or a hearing at which evidence is received shall, if available, hear motions and make all decisions and rulings required to be made by the court relating to the evidence and the conduct of the trial or hearing after the trial or hearing is concluded. If the judge before whom the trial or hearing was held is not available by reason of death, sickness, absence or unwillingness to act, then any other judge regularly sitting in the judicial circuit or assigned to the cause may perform any of the duties to be performed by the court after the verdict is returned or the findings or decision of the court is filed; but if he is satisfied that he cannot perform those duties because he did not preside at the trial or for any other reason, he may in his discretion grant a new trial or new hearing, in whole or in part.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““On review of a decision denying post-conviction relief, this court must be mindful that such a proceeding is in the nature of a civil action. Hoskins v. State (1973), [261] Ind. [291], 302 N.E.2d 499, 500 . Where a petitioner for such relief has been unsuccessful in the trial court, he stands in the position of one appealing from a negative judgment, and must demonstrate on appeal that such judgment is contrary to law. Pettit v. State (1974), [160] Ind. App. [63], 310 N.E.2d 81 . Thus, such an appellant must show that the evidence before the trial court was without conflict and led to but one conclusion, and that the trier of fact reached a contrary conclusion. Souerdike v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 204 , 108 N.E.2d 136 ; Marshall v. Ahrendt (1975), [165] Ind. App. [359], 332 N.E.2d 223 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hamilton 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.