Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 Ind. App. 70 - Snelling v. State

167 Ind. App. 70 - Snelling v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
September 2009
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 2009

12 state decisions

601975198019902000decided

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 Midgett v. Slayton · Ashton v. Anderson · Ballard v. State · State Ex Rel. Cutsinger v. Spencer, Judge · Martin 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"None of the language contained in that definition implies that there is no deception if the person deceived 'in the exercise of reasonable care should have known' that the representations made to him were untrue, and Snelling has cited no authority supporting such an interpretation. On the contrary the statutory definition places upon the person who has created a false impression ... the burden of dispelling it. [Footnote omitted.]"”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““As our survey of Indiana law regarding communication with the jury indicates, the crucial requirement is that the instructions first be read in open court in the presence and with the consent of the parties and their attorneys. Since the trial judge did.so here, we find it was proper to send copies of the instructions to the jury.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “even if the victim, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known the representations made to him were untrue. The Snell ing cases are distinguishable. There, the court said:”
    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.