Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 180 Ind. App. 222 - Hooker v. State

180 Ind. App. 222 - Hooker v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
June 1983
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Escobedo v. Illinois · Ortiz v. State · Burton v. State · Nacoff 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Specific intent is present when from the circumstances the offender must have subjectively desired the prohibited result. General criminal intent exists when from the circumstances the prohibited result may reasonably be expected to follow from 'the offender’s voluntary act, irrespective of a subjective desire to have accomplished such result. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 32 and 35 (1961).””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The term ‘intoxication’ means a condition resulting from drinking of alcoholic beverages which impairs a persons (sic) normal faculties, either of perception or will of judgment, so that he no longer has a capacity to form a specific intent to commit such an act. Further, any intoxication, not necessarily total, may be considered on the question of specific intent.” (Emphasis added).”
    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.