Limeberry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 1997 · most notably Langley v. State (1971), West v. State (1950)
1 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 Pehlman v. State · Straw v. State · Carlin v. State · Hunnicutt v. Frauhiger · Sandusky Gas & Electric Co. 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.
“"The court could not pass judgment of imprisonment on this verdict without ignoring the expressed intent of the jury. It was the duty of the court, of its own motion on observing the defect, to order the jury to retire and correct it. The duty of the jury was not completed until this was done. What the jury might have done had it been ordered to retire and correct its verdict is unknown but its rights and duties under such circumstances are well expressed as follows: `After a jury has been directed to return to the jury-room and amend or correct the verdict, it has the power and right to change the whole verdict, and bring in an entirely different verdict. ' 2 Watson's Works Practice 447, § 1875; Rush v. Pedigo (1878), 63 Ind. 479, 485 . The jury would have had a right to render a new verdict giving a time sentence of six months or for any lesser period, or it could have omitted the time sentence entirely. The defendant had a right to have the jury, not the court, pass on this important matter. Since the jury was discharged by the court, without first having fully performed its duty, it can not now be reassembled. Since the verdict is valid so far as the fine is concerned, the judgment rendered thereon is likewise valid. Since that part of the verdict concerning a time sentence is so ambiguous, that it is void, that part of the judgment fixing a time sentence is without foundation and is erroneous. Hunnicutt v. Frauhiger (1927), 199 Ind. 501, 158 N.E. 572 ." (Emphasis added.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““When the defendant is found guilty the jury except in the cases provided for in the next three [two] sections, must state in the verdict the amount of fine and punishment to be inflicted; . . . .” Acts 1927, ch. 200, §1, p. 574, being Burns’ §9-1819, 1956 Repl., supra. (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to which may be added imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six (6) months.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kelsie 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.