McCallister v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Madison v. State (1955), Hawkins v. State (1941)
32 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 Anderson v. State · Alyea v. State · Mergentheim v. State · Kruger v. State · Headlee 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must be a substantial one, such as might mislead the defense....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Madison v. State · Miller v. State““The decisions indicate a tendency to tolerate a greater variance between allegations and proof where the allegations are hot necessary. But, from what we have seen from Chitty, it appears that the early cases, like the later ones just cited, looked to the materiality of the variance. It is true that in the Dennis case, and in other early Indiana cases, it is said that unnecessary descriptive allegations must be proven precisely as charged. In some of these cases the variance may have been material, but the court seems to have considered that the variance would be fatal regardless of materiality. The conclusion cannot be approved, since it is not supported by precedent or sound reason and has not been countenanced in the modern cases.” (Our italics.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Madison v. State“It is inconceivable that it would have made any difference to the defense, or the opportunity to prepare it, whether the property was stolen in Vigo County or in some other county, and the appellant does not suggest or point out that he was in any way prejudiced by the variance. Under such circumstances the variance must be considered immaterial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wurster 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.