Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 192 IND 29 - Cole v. State

Cole v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1922

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
3
states following
August 1983
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently August 1983 · most notably Hash v. State (1972), Hester v. State (1974)

41 state decisions

1201922193019401950196019701980decided

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 Sparf v. United States · State v. Hopkirk · Stocking v. State · Kirk v. Commonwealth · Harlan 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “That an instruction need not be given in a criminal case unless there is evidence to which it is applicable has been decided by this court. Harlan v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 322 , 130 N.E. 413, 418 . * * * * * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"That an instruction need not be given in a criminal case unless there is evidence to which it is applicable has been decided by this court. Harlan v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 322 , 130 N.E. 413, 418 . [Id. at 36, 134 N.E. at 870 .] * * * * * * "The constitutional right of the jury to determine the law as well as the facts in a criminal case does not impose upon the trial court a duty to instruct them that the law of murder and manslaughter is something different from what it has been declared by statute, nor to suggest to the jury that they may decide otherwise than according to law. [Id. at 37, 134 N.E. at 870 .] * * * * * * "A jury might have power to stultify itself by returning a verdict contrary to what it knew to be the law, since jurisdiction to decide includes power to decide wrong. But the court, when giving instructions, is not required to insult the jurors by a suggestion that they may do so. And since it is clearly the law that if the accused killed the deceased in the perpetration of a robbery he was guilty under the law of murder in the first degree, there was no error in giving instructions to that effect. [Id. at 37, 134 N.E. at 870 .]"”
    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.