Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 Ind. App. 342 - Bickel v. State

176 Ind. App. 342 - Bickel v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1978

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2016

11 state decisions

6019781980199020002010decided

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 Williams v. State · Kelley v. State · 164 Ind. App. 665 - Wilson v. State · Burk v. State · State v. Baker

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

  1. “■ “We perceive two particular deficiencies in the information. (1) It fails to set out Bickel’s role in the conspiracy. See State v. Baker (1963), 244 Ind. 150 , 191 N.E.2d 499 . (2) It fails to describe the intended felony with the same certainty and particularity as an indictment for committing such felony. Kelley y. State (1936), 210 Ind. 380 , 3 N.E.2d 65 . Bickel’s information did no more than name the intended felony, robbery, without naming any of the elements of robbery. Such an information is insufficient. * * * An accused has a right to require that any crime alleged against him be charged with sufficient certainty to enable him to anticipate the proof which would be adduced against him so he could meet it. * * *. Bickel was denied this right. His motion to dismiss the information should have been granted.” (Citations omitted.)”
    2 later decisions 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.