172 Ind. App. 343 - Gubitz v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently April 1994 · most notably 179 Ind. App. 267 - Fox v. State (1979), Kindred v. State (1989)
26 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 Fiswick v. United States · Fisher v. United States · Blackburn v. State · Pulliam v. State · Newman 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Reference should here be made to the well established rule in this state that evidence of acts or statements of parties to a conspiracy in furtherance of its objects, is admissible against all the parties to the conspiracy though the statements were made or the acts were performed in the absence of the defendants. "However, it is also true that before the acts or declarations of one conspirator are admissible into evidence against a coconspirator, there must be some evidence, either direct or circumstantial of the existence of a conspiracy. "As this Court said in the case of Dye v. State, supra, ( 130 Ind. 87, 88 , 29 N.E. 771, 772 ). '... it is a rudimental principle that agency, conspiracy or the like, cannot be proved by the declarations of the alleged agent or conspirator. To make the admissions of an alleged conspirator evidence, there must be some evidence, although it need not be strong, of the existence of the conspiracy."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Maynard v. State“[aln indictment or affidavit need only be so certain and particular as to enable the accused, the court and the jury to determine the crime for which conviction is sought. The defendant must be given sufficient information to enable him to prepare his defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fadell 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.