169 Ind. App. 211 - Dulin v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Carswell v. State (1999), State v. Davis (1979)
3 federal appellate · 54 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Morrissey v. Brewer · Mapp v. Ohio · Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Mempa v. Rhay · Escoe v. Zerbst
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he courts have found it unnecessary to fully apply the exclusionary rule when dealing with probation revocation. Rather, it appears that evidence seized illegally will be excluded only if it was seized as part of a continuing plan of police harassment or in a particularly offensive manner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. CS v. State · Plue v. State““ ‘9. Defendant is to conduct himself in such a manner that no one has any occasion to question whether or not he has violated the law. That means that if anyone has sufficient grounds to think that he should be arrested or charged, that may be a violation of the terms and conditions of probation, and so much as a traffic ticket could be enough to revoke the probation. This goes not so much to the act, but to the mental attitude of respect for the law and ability to abide by the law.’ ” 169 Ind.App. at 213 , 346 N.E.2d at 747-748 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Shumaker v. State““Although we find as we do, we are compelled to sound a note of warning. We do not here relegate probationers to second-class citizenship, nor sanction abusive police/probation officer conduct. This opinion is not an invitation to impose oppressive probation conditions, nor to conduct constant, meddling surveillance which unreasonably interferes with a probationer’s privacy. Our sole purpose in deciding this issue as we do is to insure that probation revocation decisions are prompt, complete and fair.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alspach 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.