Arnold v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2008
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 Stice v. State · Hendrickson v. State · DOWLING v. State · Lunce, Reynolds v. State · Shelby 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Frequently, even the best of attorneys make decisions during the course of a trial which later may appear to have been errors in judgment. This is a natural result of the imperfections of man and are circumstances which cannot be avoided and must be expected. We cannot ‘second guess’ a trial attorney and reverse a case simply because some other attorney might, under the attending circumstances, have pursued a different course.” Quoting in authority from Stice v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 144 , 89 N. E. 2d 915 ; Dowling et al. v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 426 , 118 N. E. 2d 801 ; Lunce, Reynolds v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 685 , 122 N. E. 2d 5 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Micks 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.