Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 Ind. 303 - Cockerham v. State

Cockerham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Bellmore v. State (1992), Helton v. State (1980)

29 state decisions

110196519701980199020002010decided

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 Bradley v. State · Pearman v. State · White v. State · Barrick v. State · Lamar 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Walking through an open door does not constitute a `breaking' as such element is known in the crime of burglary. However, the use of the slightest force in pushing aside a door in order to enter does constitute a breaking through the doorway." Link v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 466 , 113 N.E.2d 43 .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Burglary — First, second, and third degrees — Penalties.— (a) Whoever breaks and enters into any dwelling-house or other place of human habitation with the intent to commit any felony therein, or to do any act of violence or injury to any human being, shall be guilty of burglary in the first degree, and on conviction thereof shall be imprisoned not less than ten [10] years nor more than twenty [20] years and be disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““. .. no one could enter the . . . [building] with the windows and doors locked and closed without opening such doors or windows. This would constitute a “breaking” even though there be no physical marks showing that force was used. As a matter of logic, no one could conclude otherwise than that a door or window had to be pushed open to get inside the . . . [building]. We must therefore find that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury.””
    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.