Hunter v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 1983 · most notably Emler v. State (1972), Baromich v. State (1969)
27 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 Aszman v. State · Brattain v. State · Yarber v. State · Booher v. State · In Re Sobieski
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.
““10-3039. Penalties. — A person convicted of theft of property not from the person and of less than one hundred dollars [$100] in value shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, be fined not more than five hundred dollars [$500] or imprisoned for not more than one [1] year, or both, or such person may be imprisoned in the state prison not less than one [1] year nor more than five [5] years, and fined in a sum not exceeding five hundred dollars [$500] and be disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of profit or trust for any determinate period.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Young v. State · Passwater v. State“"`* * * but the existence or non-existence of such a criminal intent upon such a record with conflicting inferences was a question of fact to be determined by the fact finding court or jury from all the evidence. Booher v. State (1901), 156 Ind. 435, 448 , 60 N.E. 156, 160 , 54 L.R.A. 391 ; Aszman v. The State (1890), 123 Ind. 347 , 24 N.E. 123, 126 .' Hunter v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 494 , 207 N.E.2d 207 . "`... intent may be inferred from circumstances which legitimately permit it. Luther v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 619, 625 , 98 N.E. 640 ... .' Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35 , 188 N.E.2d 537 ."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(5) A person convicted of theft shall be fined in any sum not exceeding five thousand dollars ($5,000) or imprisoned for not less than one (1) year nor more than ten (10) years, or both, and be disenfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determinate period regardless of the monetary value of the stolen property if: 9k % * * * * (b) the property stolen is that of the government;””
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.