168 Ind. App. 384 - Imel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In Kent v. U.S. (1966), 383 U.S. 541 , 86 S.Ct. 1045 , 16 L.Ed.2d.84, the United States Supreme Court held that such waiver proceedings were .‘critically important’ in terms of the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the Court held that the requirements of procedural due process mandate that in juvenile waiver proceedings, the.juvenile is entitled to access to the social records and probation or similar reports which presumably are considered by the court; that he is entitled to a hearing; and that he is entitled to have the court state its reasons for its decision to the extent necessary to permit a meaningful review of the decision. “Shortly thereafter, our Supreme Court interpreted our statute and the requirements of Kent in Summers V. State (1967), 248 Ind. 551 , 230 N.E.2d 320 . In Summers the Court indicated that although it was not limiting the factors that might justify waiver, as a guideline, waiver might be appropriate where it was determined after hearing that (a) the offense ‘has specific prosecutive merit in the opinion of the prosecuting attorney;’ or (b) ‘it is heinous or of an aggravated character, greater weight being given to offenses against the personor (c) even if less serious, it is ‘part of a repetitive pattern of juvenile offenses which would lead to a determination that said juvenile may be beyond rehabilitation under the regular statutory juvenile procedures;’ or (d) where it is found to be in the best interest of the pu”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Swinehart v. State · 179 Ind. App. 87 - Bey v. State

2. “The juvenile code reflects the doctrine of the state as parens patriae. It recognizes that among those committing antisocial acts are youthful persons, and that there is a presumption based upon human experience that there is likely to be a lack of mature discretion, disceriminato-ry judgment and stability of character on the part of these offenders. It also recognizes the value of investing the court with sound discretion in its treatment of youthful offenders so that disposition of a case may be governed, at least in part, by the significant attending circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. C.F.

3. ““Where a request is made that the juvenile court waive jurisdiction, it is both proper and necessary that the court consider whether the matter sought to be waived to criminal court has prosecutive merit, for if it does not, there should be no waiver. On the other hand, if the court determines that the charges do have prosecutive merit, then it must reach the second question whether it should waive or retain its juvenile jurisdiction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 Ind. App. 517 - Cartwright v. State