Workman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 1983 · most notably United States v. Barnett (1982), Bays v. State (1959)
3 federal appellate · 35 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 Peats v. State · Brunaugh v. State · Breaz v. State · Johns 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“". . . In Brunaugh v. State (1910), 173 Ind. 483 , 90 N.E. 1019 , the rule is clearly laid down that, under an indictment in the usual form, which merely follows the language of the statute, a conviction will be sustained upon evidence that the accused actually committed the crime, or that he aided or abetted in its commission, or that he counseled, encouraged, hired, or procured another person to commit it, or that he committed it through the medium of an innocent agent. We are unable to find that this rule has ever been doubted in this state in a case in which the question was presented. See Peats v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 560 , 12 N.E. (2d) 270, and Breaz v. State (1938), 214 Ind. 31 , 13 N.E. (2d) 952. Since the accessory may, under the statute, be tried and convicted ‘in the same manner as if he were a principal,’ it cannot be seriously doubted that the venue must be laid in the jurisdiction where the principal would be prosecuted.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Saret v. State · BOWLING v. State
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.