167 Ind. App. 396 - McCarty v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2006
6 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 Katz v. United States · United States v. White · Anderson v. Alabama · California v. Federal Power Commission · 155 Ind. App. 558 - Burrus v. Silhavy
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Evidence of another and distinct crime is admissible where it was committed as part of the same transaction. . . . The res gestae is not confined to the act charged, but includes acts, statements, occurrences and circumstances which are substantially contemporaneous with the main fact.” 241 Ind. 176, 178 , 169 N.E.2d 723 . See also: Thomas v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 198 , 328 N.E.2d 212 ; and McCarty v. State, (1975) Ind. App., 338 N.E.2d 738 , which cite Kiefer, supra, with approval.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gross 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.