DeBoor v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 1987
18 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 Hicks v. State · Schlegel v. State · Brattain v. State · Yarber v. State · Booher 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The trial court is not required to accept tendered instructions and give them in the exact language in which they are tendered. It may, so long as they are proper, give instructions in its own language, and when a subject is substantially covered in an instruction given by the court, it is not error to refuse one tendered by the defendant which is in substance the same but is couched in different language.” Bange v. State (1958), 237 Ind. 422, 435 , 146 N. E. 2d 811 ; Beatty v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 598, 603 , 194 N. E. 2d 727 ; DeBoor v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 87, 93 , 182 N. E. 2d 250 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Appellant's instruction no. 43 is mandatory in nature. It does not contain a complete statement of the law upon the subject and for this reason was properly refused."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pritchard 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.