Todd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 state decisions

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

1. ““ ‘All the authorities in Indiana and the great weight of authority throughout the country hold that in a prosecution for uttering forged paper it is competent to show that shortly before or shortly after the event charged, the accused uttered similar forged instruments to an extent which makes it improbable that he should have been ignorant of the forgery, as bearing on the intent with which the particular act was done. . . . And many authorities hold that, where a number of like offenses were committed in a like manner, as if by following a novel system, evidence that the accused committed one of such offenses is competent on the question of his identity as the person who committed another for which he is on trial. . . .’ Cooper v. State (1923), 193 Ind. 144, 149 , 139 N. E. 184 . Other similar acts or offenses are also relevant in a charge of issuing a fraudulent check to> evidence of fraudulent intent, design, scheme and plan. Huffman v. State (1933), 205 Ind. 75 , 185 N. E. 131 .” 229 Ind. at 672-673 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stone v. State · 165 Ind. App. 1 - Fry v. State

2. “"Evidence of other crimes should appear to be substantial, and at least make out a prima facie case before it is admissible. If the evidence of another crime only amounts to a suspicion, it should not be received. (citations omitted)"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. O'CONNER v. State · Kindred v. State

3. ““A final judgment is one which disposes of the subject matter of the litigation as to the parties so far as the court in which the action is pending has power to dispose of it, and puts an end to the particular case as to all of such parties and all of such issues. Kalleres et al. v. Glover, Receiver (1935), 208 Ind. 472, 478 , 196 N. E. 679 , and cases cited; Terre Haute, etc., R. Co. v. Indianapolis, etc., Co. (1906), 167 Ind. 193, 197 , 78 N. E. 661; Northern, etc., Cable Co. v. The Peoples Mut. Tel. Co. (1916), 184 Ind. 267, 270 , 111 N. E. 4 and cases cited; Kunkel, Warden v. Moneyhon (1938), 214 Ind. 606, 609 , 17 N. E. 2d 82 ; McNelis v. Wheeler (1947), 225 Ind. 148, 152 , 73 N. E. 2d 339 ; The State, ex rel. Braden v. Krug et al. (1883), 94 Ind. 366, 369 , supra and cases cited; II Watson’s Revision, Works’ Practice, §2243; Elliott’s Appellate Procedure, §§90, 91; 2 Gavit, Indiana Pleading and Practice, §523, pp. 2572, 2573.” Todd v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 664, 690, 691 , 101 N. E. 2d 45 . See also State v. Derry (1908), 171 Ind. 18 , 85 N. E. 765 ; Thomas, Administrator v. The Chicago and Erie Railway Company (1894), 139 Ind. 462, 463 , 39 N. E. 44 ; Ind. Nat. Bk. of Indianapolis v. Danner, Rec. (1930), 204 Ind. 709, 711 , 170 N. E. 327 ; The Western Union Telegraph Company v. Locke, Administrator (1886), 107 Ind. 9, 11 , 7 N. E. 579 ; Mak-Saw-Ba Club v. Coffin (1907), 169 Ind. 204, 207, 209 , 82 N. E. 461 ; Barnes v. Wagener (1907), 169 Ind. 511, 514 , 82 N. E. 1037”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bozovichar v. State