Dixon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2009 · most notably State v. Brady (1953), Lindsey v. State (1965)
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 · Boos v. State · Crickmore v. State · Hunt v. State · Larkin 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our statutes provide that the precise time of the commission of an offense need not be stated in the indictment or affidavit, and that it is sufficient if the offense is shown to have been committed within the statute of limitations, except where time is an indispensable ingredient in the offense. § 9-1106, Burns’ 1942 Replacement. This court has held many times that time is not of the essence of criminal offenses, except where the offense is in doing the thing charged upon a certain date. Ordinarily it is enough to show that the offense was committed before the affidavit was filed and within the statute of limitations. Crickmore v. State (1937), 213 Ind. 586, 591 , 12 N. E. (2d) 266; Peats v. State (1937), 213 Ind. 560, 567 , 12 N. E. (2d) 270; Hunt v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 550, 555, 556 , 159 N. E. 149 ; Boos v. State (1914), 181 Ind. 562, 570 , 105 N. E. 117 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Platt v. State · State v. Cooper““This statute (Burns’ Stat., §9-1133) permitted this amendment and does not require that the affidavit be resworn to or that any other■ formalities be complied with.” “Such amendment relates back to the time of the filing of the original affidavit, and if it occurs in the course of the trial the defendant need not plead again, the witnesses need not be resworn and the trial need not start anew, but may proceed as though the affidavit, as originally filed, had been in the form it took after amendment.” (emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jeffers v. State“"It is also permissible to admit testimony that certain described articles had been stolen without introducing the articles themselves in evidence."”
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.