166 Ind. App. 441 - Moreno v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 state decisions

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(C) Defendant on recognizance. No person shall be held by recognizance to answer an indictment or affidavit, without trial, for a period embracing more than one year continuously from the date on which a recognizance was first taken therein; but he shall be discharged except as provided by subdivision (A) of this rule. “(A) . . . except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act. . . .””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Ind. App. 696 - Wilson v. State · 166 Ind. App. 632 - State v. Moles

2. ““ ‘ “. . . We, therefore, do no more than adhere to the meaning of our Fahy case when we hold, as we now do, that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless, the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. While appellate courts do not ordinarily have the original task of applying such a test, it is a familiar standard to all courts, and we believe its adoption will provide a more workable standard. ...” “ ‘When applying the federal harmless error standard, we must weigh the evidence against Larimer [appellant]— absent his confession — and determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, an honest and fair-minded jury would have rendered a guilty verdict based solely on the remaining untainted evidence.’ ” (Our emphasis.) 336 N.E.2d at 681 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stubbs v. State · 168 Ind. App. 278 - Dyer v. State

3. “"(C) Defendant Discharged. No person shall be held on recognizance or otherwise to answer a criminal charge for a period in aggregate embracing more than one year from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge, whichever is later; except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to try him during such period because of congestion of the court calendar; provided, however, that in the last-mentioned cireumstance, the prosecuting attorney shall file a timely motion for continuance as under subdivision (A) of this rule. Any defendant so held shall, on motion, be discharged."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 180 Ind. App. 679 - Pillars v. State · State Ex Rel. O'Donnell v. Cass Superior Court