Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 196 Ind. 213 - Davis v. State

Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1925

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
7
states following
November 1975
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently November 1975 · most notably Burton v. State (1973), Watts v. State (1950)

28 state decisions

100192519301940195019601970decided

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 Agar v. State · Williams v. State · State v. Jackson · Bader v. State · Waterman 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““When any offense is committed upon or in relation to any property belonging to partners, or to several joint owners, or which, when the offense was committed, was in possession of a bailee or tenant, the indictment or affidavit for such offense shall be deemed sufficient if it allege the ownership of such property to be in such partnership by its firm name, or in any one of such partners, owners, bailors or bailees, tenant or tenants, without naming all of them; . . .” §9-1121, Burns’ 1942 Replacement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Every . . . agent ... or employee of any person . . . who, having access to, control or possession of any money ... to the possession of which his employer is entitled, shall, while in such employment, take ... or in any way appropriate to his own use . . . any money . . . belonging to or deposited with or held by such person ... in whose employment such . . . agent ... or employee may be, shall be deemed guilty of embezzlement ...””
    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.