174 Ind. App. 202 - Maynard v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If the legislature had enacted an ameliorative amendment, the application of which would be constitutionally permissible to persons who had committed the crime prior to its effective date, we would be willing to find a statement of legislative intent to apply the sentencing provisions of that ameliorative statute to all persons to whom such application would be possible and constitutional. Article I, section 18, of the Indiana Constitution provides: ‘The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice.’ If there is an express statement by the legislature that its former penalty was too severe and that a lighter punishment is proper as punishment for the commission of the proscribed act, then to hold that the more severe penalty should apply would serve no purpose other than to satisfy a constitutionally impermissible desire for vindictive justice. We could not ascribe to the legislature an intent to punish for vindictive purposes.” 166 Ind.App. at 401 -2 n. 8, 336 N.E.2d at 702 n. 8.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. State · Watford v. State

2. ““ ‘Probable cause to suspect the accused in an entrapment case was formerly required in Indiana as a protection against potential overreaching by law enforcement officials. Walker v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 65 , 262 N.E.2d 641 . However, in Hardin v. State (1976), Ind., 358 N.E.2d 134 , our Supreme Court overruled Walker to the extent that it required proof of probable cause to suspect in an entrapment case. This Court then applied the new rule enunciated in Hardin retroactively in Davila v. State (1977), Ind.App., 360 N.E.2d 283 . The retroactive application of Hardin eliminates any need for further discussion of [defendant’s] first allegation of error.’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lewandowski v. State