Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 235 Ind. 484 - Sinks, Taylor v. State

Sinks, Taylor v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
November 2004
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently November 2004 · most notably Wilson v. State (1975), Jones v. State (1977)

27 state decisions

130195619601970198019902000decided

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 Gernhart v. State · Ray v. State · Beneks v. State · Henderson v. State · Schaffer 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Appellants contend that the evidence fails to prove either criminal intent in them to commit a robbery, or that the money was actually taken by them. Admittedly, neither of these essential elements of the crime are proved by direct, positive evidence. However, it is not necessary that the fact be proved by such evidence. The rule is well settled that direct evidence of the fact of and the intent to commit a specific crime is not essential but may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. (Citations) In this case the larceny was proved. It was also proved that the larceny was immediately preceded by an act of violence by appellants which rendered the victim unconscious. From the above facts the jury had a right to infer that when violence was so used by the appellants it was done with the specific intent to rob. We cannot say that such evidence favorable to the state and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom are not sufficient to sustain the decisions in these cases. The judgments are therefore affirmed.””
    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.