Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 Ind. 113 - Metzger v. State

Metzger v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1938

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
October 1976
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 1976 · most notably Lawrence v. State (1972), 5 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Furth (1940)

9 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

17019381940195019601970decided

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 Sammons v. State · Kell 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “. . it has been held by the Supreme Court in this state and in other jurisdictions, that the allegation and proof of former convictions are alleged in the affidavit or indictment and shown upon the trial, for the single purpose of classifying the defendant as an habitual criminal, and for no other purpose. The jury has no right to consider such proof as bearing upon the charge for which the defendant is upon trial, except in so far as he has been cross-examined concerning those convictions” (our emphasis). Metzger v. State (1938), 214 Ind. 113, 117-118 , 13 N. E. 2d 519, 521 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Now, the defendant has taken the witness stand and testified in his own behalf. In so doing, he becomes a witness for himself, and you will scrutinize his testimony as you would that of any other witness, and regard him as a witness in the cause.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““* * * A statute of this nature should be strictly construed. Its provisions should not be extended by construction, and, where, as in the case now under consideration, proof of former convictions had been made, that proof must be considered separate and apart from the proof upon the offense charged. * * *.” 214 Ind. at 113 .”
    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.