Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 216 Ind. 106 - Brown v. State

Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
1
states following
December 1986
most recently cited

55 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 1986 · most notably 166 Ind. App. 199 - Merry v. State (1975), Randolph v. State (1954)

55 state decisions

190193919401950196019701980decided

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 Indiana Railway Co. v. Maurer · Greer v. State · Eva v. State · 97 Ind. App. 556 - Vaughn Building Company v. State of Indiana · First National Bank of Cambridge City v. Colter

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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It will be noted, therefore, that the motion for a new trial does not disclose whether the questions complained of were propounded on behalf of the state or the defendant . . .; what objections, if any, were made to them at the time; or whether exceptions were reserved. Such indefinite assignments do not present anything for review on appeal. “When error is predicated upon the admission or rejection of testimony, the motion for a new trial should set out the question and answer, if there was one, or the substance thereof. This was done in the case at bar, but that is not enough. The objection urged below should also be set forth, together with the ruling of the court with respect thereto, and it should be made to appear that a timely exception was saved. This is necessary for two good reasons: (1) that the trial court may be fully apprised of the alleged error so that it may have an opportunity to correct the ruling by granting the motion if it deems it proper to do so; and (2) that this court may be able to consider the matter on appeal without being burdened to search the record for grounds to reverse.””
    3 later decisions 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.