Shipman v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently October 1992 · most notably Davis v. State (1976), Bowen v. State (1975)
91 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 Baker v. State · Flowers v. State · Watts v. State · Kallas v. State · Siberry 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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Who are incompetent. The following persons shall not be competent witnesses: ... Second. Children under ten (10) years of age, unless it appears that they understand the nature and obligation of an oath."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Pearish v. State · Lamar v. State“"... Further, even though the court may have permitted the question and answer out of order, it does not appear that the appellant was in anywise prejudiced thereby, ... "The scope of re-direct examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and although he permits evidence to be introduced under such re-direct examination for the first time, this fact will not, under ordinary circumstances, constitute reversible error unless the opposite party is prevented from further interrogating the witness on the subject matter and of presenting other evidence in contradiction of the testimony adduced if it is prejudicial to his position in the case. These circumstances do not appear in this case. Brazil Block Coal Co. v. Gibson (1903), 160 Ind. 319, 326 , 66 N.E. 882, 885 ; Wells v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 415, 425, 426 , 158 N.E.2d 256, 260, 261-262 ."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rouse v. State · Lamar v. State““Whether a leading question is to be allowed is a decision largely within the discretion of the trial court. On appeal it must be shown that there was an abuse of discretion. Webster v. State, (1934) 206 Ind. 431 , 190 N.E. 52 ; Seymour Water Co., v. Lebline, (1924) 195 Ind. 481 , 144 N.E. 30 . Also, to constitute reversible error, it must appear that appellant was substantially injured by the answer. Hilton v. Mason, (1883) 92 Ind. 157 ; Weik v. Pugh, (1884) 92 Ind. 382 . It does not appear that the court abused its discretion in permitting the State to ask the question to which the appellant objects, nor does it appear that appellant was in anywise injured by the answer.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rapier v. State · King 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.