Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 Ind. App. 397 - Hunter v. State

172 Ind. App. 397 - Hunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
11
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

66 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Bowers v. State (1978), State v. Brown (1983)

66 state decisions — followed in 11 states

42019771980199020002010decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · United States Marcus v. Hess · Serfass v. United States · Breed v. Jones · Helvering v. Mitchell

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

  1. ““(a) A person having the care, custody, or control of a dependent who knowingly or intentionally: (1) Places the dependent in a situation that may endanger his life or health; ****** commits neglect of a dependent, a Class D felony.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Neglect of a child shall consist in any of the following acts, by anyone having the custody or control of the child; (a) wilfully failing to provide proper and sufficient food, clothing, maintenance, regular school education as required by law, medical attendance or surgical treatment, and a clean and proper home, or (b) failure to do or permit to be done any act necessary for the child’s physical or moral well-being: Provided, however, That no provision of this act [35-14 — 1—1-13-14-1-7 [sic]] shall be construed to mean that a child is neglected or lacks proper parental care whose parent, guardian or custodian in good faith selects and depends upon spiritual means or prayer for the treatment or cure of disease or remedial care of such child.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““. . . Eaglen v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 144 , 231 N.E.2d 147 , in effect re moves the requirement of intent from the cruelty to a child statute by holding that entrusting the care of one’s child to another does not relieve the parents [sic] of the duty to care for his child. Thus the parent need not have the specific intent to commit the act, but merely allowing the act to be committed will support a conviction of cruelty to a child.””
    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.