Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 Ind. 497 - State v. McNulty

State v. McNulty’s Empirical Analysis

1950

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
February 1958
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Commonwealth v. Sullivan · Hudelson v. State · Freleigh v. State · Trout v. State · State v. Bove

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Appellees insist that appellant’s brief does not comply with our rules. They object that said brief does not set out appellant’s praecipe for the ■transcript, nor does it set forth that the indictments were endorsed as a ‘true bill’ or that they were endorsed by the foreman of the grand jury. There is no merit to any of these objections. Enough of the record is set out to fully present the errors relied upon as required by Rule 2-17 of this court. If a praecipe was not filed, or if any or all of the indictments were not endorsed as required by law, such facts could have been pointed out in appellant’s answer brief as provided by Rule 2-18 of this court.””
    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.