Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 Ind. 361 - Limp v. State

Limp v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
October 1978
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 1978

16 state decisions

120195019601970decided

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 Wright v. Peabody Coal Co. · Brattain v. State · Freese v. State · Cazak v. State · Walters 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘The State introduced no evidence in rebuttal on the question of appellant’s sanity, and for this reason appellant insists that the verdict was contrary to law. The substance of the argument is that as appellant offered evidence tending to prove appellant’s unsoundness of mind, the jury was bound to acquit, in the absence of direct proof to the contrary. Unquestionably the sanity of the defendant must appear beyond a reasonable doubt, and, when the presumption of sanity that attends every one has been overthrown or impaired, the State must reestablish it by competent proof, or the defendant should be acquitted. But it is the province of the jury, under proper instructions, to determine when the condition of sanity has been made doubtful, and when the doubt has been removed. “ ‘All testimony is not proof. That only is proof which convinces. . . . So . . . the jury, being the sole judges of the weight of the evidence, found the evidence offered by appellant unworthy of belief, they had a right to disregard it.’ ” See also: Wright v. Peabody Coal Co. (1948), 225 Ind. 679, 687 , 77 N. E. 2d 116 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “. . to sustain the appellant’s contention this court would be compelled to hold as a matter of law that appellant’s testimony herein, and what he told the experts upon which they based their opinions, must be taken by the jury as true. It was within the province of the jury to determine what evidence they would believe.””
    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.