Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 Ind. App. 292 - Johnson v. State

167 Ind. App. 292 - Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
November 1988
most recently cited

19 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Spivey v. State · 159 Ind. App. 59 - Bennett v. State · 159 Ind. App. 663 - Brattain v. Herron · Patton, Nickelson v. State · 158 Ind. App. 177 - Saloom v. Holder

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.

  1. “"The requirement of specificity contained in TR. 59(B) and echoed by TR. 59(G) should be notorious by now. Not only must the alleged error be specifically set out, but also the facts and grounds in support of the claimed error must be discussed with enough particularity that the trial court may be made aware of the exact legal issue involved. Failure to comply waives any claimed error except sufficiency of the evidence, pursuant to TR. 50(A)(5)."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““(A) Judgment on the evidence — How raised — Effect. Where all or some of the issues in a case tried before a jury or an advisory jury are not supported by sufficient evidence or a verdict thereon is clearly erroneous as contrary to the evidence because the evidence is insufficient to support it, the court shall withdraw such issues from the jury and enter judgment thereon or shall enter judgment thereon notwithstanding a verdict. A party may move for such judgment on the evidence: ❖ ❖ * “(5) may raise the issue upon appeal for the first time in criminal appeals but not in civil cases; . . . .””
    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.