Rudd v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It seems to us that the proper construction is to hold that an accused, regardless of his guilt or innocence, has the right to insist that there be substantial compliance with [the statute], and if these provisions are not substantially complied with, his substantial rights are harmed.” 231 Ind. at 111 , 107 N.E.2d at 170 [emphasis added]. Furthermore, Judge Emmert noted that: “The only way this court has to enforce substantial compliance with the statutes on juries is to reverse when the issue is properly presented in the trial court and here.” 231 Ind. at 113 , 107 N.E.2d at 171 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Owen v. State · Wireman v. State

2. ““Since there was not substantial compliance with the statutes on grand juries we are of the opinion that the substantial rights of appellant were harmed, both under §4-3321, Burns’ 1946 Replacement, and under the test laid down in Cooper v. State (1889), 120 Ind. 377, 379 , 22 N. E. 320 , supra, and subsequent cases following its reasoing. A lack of substantial compliance is more than an irregularity. These matters were promptly presented before a plea of not guilty, and the alleged offense could have been promptly presented to another grand jury lawfully constituted before the expense of a jury trial. As was stated in State v. Bass (1936), 210 Ind. 181, 184 , 1 N. E. 2d 927 , ‘Our statutory method of drawing juries was devised for the purpose of putting the selection beyond suspicion of advantage or favoritism.’ The only way this court has to enforce substantial compliance with the statutes on juries is to reverse when the issue is properly presented in the trial court and here.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Leedy v. State

3. ““The jury box was not emptied during the last term of court for 1948 before more names were placed therein for jury service for the next calendar year, as required by § 4-3304, Burns’ 1946 Replacement. State v. Bass, 1936, 210 Ind. 181, 184 , 1 N.E.2d 927 . Both jury commissioners obtained the names from the tax schedules in the county assessor’s office, but neither did so in the presence of the other at any time, and it must be inferred that these names were placed in the jury box by each without the other being present. This was a violation of § 4-3304, Burns’ 1946 Replacement.” Id. at 108, 107 N.E.2d at 169 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wireman v. State