180 Ind. App. 679 - Pillars v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 1998 · most notably State v. Estencion (1981), 181 Ind. App. 5 - Haeger v. State (1979)
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 Elmore v. State · Bryant v. State · Young v. State · 179 Ind. App. 143 - McFarland v. State · 166 Ind. App. 441 - Moreno 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.
““No person shall be held on recognizance or otherwise to answer a criminal charge for a period in aggregate embracing more than one year from the date the criminal charge against such defendant is filed, or from the date of his arrest on such charge, whichever is later; except where a continuance was had on his motion, or the delay was caused by his act, or where there was not sufficient time to try him during such period because of congestion of the court calendar; provided, however, that in the last-mentioned circumstance, the prosecuting attorney shall file a timely motion for continuance as under subdivision (A) of this rule. Any defendant so held shall, on motion, be discharged.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tharp““It is true that, technically, Counts II and III were not lesser included offenses under Count I, the assault charge. Young v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 286 , 231 N.E.2d 797 . However, Counts II and III accused Pillars of committing the same criminal acts which the State alleged in support of the greater offense of assault with intent to kill. The information charging the assault specifically accused Pillars of aiming a firearm with the intent to kill Knox. The probable cause affidavit detailed that Pillars aimed and pointed a pistol at Knox, threatening to kill him. Without proof of the latter charges, the State could not prove the former assault charge.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Tharp
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.