Barrett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 1970
8 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 Irwin v. State · Walker Alias Walters v. State · State Ex Rel. Walker v. Youngblood · Joseph v. State · State Ex Rel. McManamon v. Hancock Circuit Court
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is necessary that an appellant show, through happenings or events which have no connection with the actual trial, and which have not been brought about by the fault of the litigant, that his time for filing such motion has expired, and that, because of the happenings or events, it was impossible for him to perfect the record for an appeal. * * * ” Barrett v. State, supra. [ 230 Ind. 533 , 105 N.E.2d 509 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Hill · Langley v. State““(A) Any defendant convicted after a trial or plea of guilty may petition the court of conviction for permission to file a belated motion for new trial, 1 where: “(1) no timely and adequate motion to correct error was filed for the defendant; “(2) the failure to file a timely motion to correct error was not due to the fault of the defendant; and “(3) the defendant has been diligent in requesting permission to file a belated motion to correct error under this rule. “The trial court shall not consider the merits of the motion, but shall determine whether there are grounds for allowing the belated motion to correct error to be filed. Any hearing on the petition shall be conducted according to Post-Conviction Remedy Rule 1 (E). “If the trial court finds such grounds, it shall permit the defendant to file the motion, and the motion shall then be treated for all purposes as a motion to correct error filed within the prescribed period. “If the trial court finds no such grounds, it shall deny defendant permission to file the motion. Defendant may appeal such a denial and the only assignment of error required is that the trial court ruling is contrary to law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jones 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.