Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 171 IND 431 - Lawson v. State

Lawson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
4
states following
January 1975
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently January 1975

2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions

6019081910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Hinshaw v. State · Blume v. State · Grubb v. State · Walker v. State · Sutherland v. Hankins

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 State clearly was entitled to place before the jury as evidence any circumstances which might suggest a possible motive on the part of the accused for perpetrating the unnatural crime of killing her husband. The jury possibly might believe from the evidence that Russell had so alienated her affections that she desired the death of her husband, and therefore was induced to kill him for that reason. Whether the evidence was sufficient to justify this belief was a matter for the determination of the jury. That it was, however, competent for the purpose for which it was introduced, is well settled. Hinshaw v. State (1897), 147 Ind. 334, 367 , 47 N. E. 157 ; People v. Nineman (1887), 8 N. Y. St. Rep. 300; Gillett, Indirect and Collat. Ev., § 59, and authorities cited in note 2,” (pp. 437, 438.)”
    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.