Romary v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 1995 · most notably Brannum v. State (1977), McCoy v. State (1960)
44 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 Agar v. State · Coolman v. State · Siberry v. State · Indiana Pipe Line Co. v. Christensen · Woodsmall 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The separation of witnesses at a trial is wholly within the discretion of the trial court. Coolman v. State (1904), 163 Ind. 503 , 72 N. E. 568 . ‘Such separation is not required by statute, nor by any rule of the common law. When asked for, it is granted, not of right, but as a favor.’ . . . When an order separating witnesses is disobeyed by a witness, it is in the discretion of the court to permit the examination of such disobedient witness.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Miller v. State · Kelley v. State““In considering a motion in arrest, all merely technical defects will be disregarded. Woodsmall v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 697, 699 , 102 N. E. 130 , and a fact fairly and rationally inferable from facts pleaded, though stated argumentatively and indirectly, may be deemed as averred. Agar v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 234 , 94 N. E. 819 . A material fact, constituting the offense, if stated in a defective manner or form, may on motion to quash, render the indictment or affidavit insufficient, while such defect, on motion in arrest, would be cured by verdict. Woodworth v. The State (1896), 145 Ind. 276 , 43 N. E. 933 and cases cited; Woodsmall v . State, supra. The evidence may cure a defect in the affidavit as against a motion in arrest. Jenkins v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 510, 514 , 124 N. E. 748 ; Crumley v. State (1938), 204 Ind. 396, 398 , 184 N. E. 533 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kelley v. State““The language and the conduct of . . . [appellant], within the hearing and view of the public was certainly most offensive, and was such as in its nature would ‘disturb the peace and quiet of the neighborhood.’ ” Romary v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 667, 671 , 64 N. E. 2d 22, 23 (our emphasis).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whited 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.