Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 233 Ind. 111 - Pearman v. State

Pearman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
March 1981
most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1981 · most notably Culombe v. Connecticut (1961), Baker v. State (1956)

50 state decisions

2201954196019701980decided

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 McNabb v. United States · Watts v. Indiana · Parker v. State · Mack v. State · Hicks 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[a]t the trial, if it appears that the prosecuting attorney has failed to file and to serve upon the defendant or upon his counsel the prosecuting attorney’s statement as prescribed herein, the court shall, in the absence of a showing of good cause for such failure by the prosecuting attorney, exclude evidence offered by the prosecuting attorney to show that the defendant was at a place other than the place stated in the defendant’s original notice and that the time was other than the time stated in the defendant’s original notice.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The alibi statute, which is of material assistance in enabling the State to detect and disprove a fraudulent alibi, puts duties upon the State as well as the defendant. The defense of alibi is a legitimate defense, and if the accused takes the proper steps pursuant to the statute, the State must be required to discharge its duties, unless good cause be shown for failure so to do. For this error the cause must be reversed.” (our emphasis) Pearman v. State (1953), 233 Ind. 111, 119 , 117 N. E. 2d 362, 366 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““We have never held the Indiana statutes requiring that an arrested accused be brought promptly into open court, require a confession to be excluded, if it is not obtained in violation of constitutional rights. “Nor do we find that he was denied representation by counsel. He made his confession less than 24 hours after his arrest, the sheriff never denied him the use of the telephone nor said he could not have a lawyer. His wife and relatives were permitted to see him during the usual visiting hours. He had competent counsel at the time of his plea of not guilty and at the time of trial.””
    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.