Henderson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently June 2002
22 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 Hinshaw v. State · Pitts v. State · Dixon v. State · State ex rel. Steigerwald v. Thomas · Hansbrough 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““At the trial of such cause, evidence may be introduced to prove the defendant’s present sanity or insanity, or his sanity or insanity at the time at which he is alleged to have committed the act charged in the indictment or affidavit. When an insanity defense is pleaded, the court shall appoint two [2], or three [3], competent disinterested physicians to examine the defendant, and to testify at the trial. Such testimony shall follow the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution and for the defense, including testimony of medical experts employed by the state and by the defense, if any. The medical witnesses appointed by the court may be cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense, and each side may introduce evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of such medical witnesses.” (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The appellant has not pointed out how he could conceivably have been harmed by the action of the trial court. The record demonstrates none and we know of none. Before the appellant would be entitled to a reversal it would be incumbent upon him to show affirmatively by the record that there was error prejudicial to his substantial rights. Pitts v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 168 , 23 N.E.2d 673, 674 ; Hansbrough v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 688 , 94 N.E.2d 534 . Technical errors or defects which do not prejudice a defendant's rights will not work a reversal."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Berwanger v. State“it is the clear infent of the statute that an expert appointed by the court shall not be permitted to testify on the subject of the sanity or insanity of the accused until after the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution and the defense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Crawford 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.