Minton v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 1987 · most notably Gray v. State (1967), Johnson v. State (1972)
28 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 Evans v. State · May v. State · Barr v. State · O'Brien v. United States · Ditton 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . It is only where a person has been instigated, induced, or lured, for the purpose of prosecution, in the commission of a crime which he had no intention of committing that he may avail himself of the defense of entrapment. Where the criminal intent originated in the mind of the person committing the criminal act, an accused may not avail himself of this defense. . . .” (Our emphasis.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lee v. State · Johnson v. State“"It has long been established in this state that when a statute imposes a greater punishment upon a second and subsequent conviction of an offense, the former conviction must be alleged in the affidavit or indictment, and proved at the trial. Evans v. State (1898), 150 Ind. 651 , 50 N.E. 820 . "This doctrine has been held to apply to the habitual criminal area. Barr v. State (1933), 205 Ind. 481 , 187 N.E. 259 . [3] "It has also been held applicable to driving `while under the influence' of intoxicating liquor, where the statute provides for an increased penalty on a second or subsequent conviction. Buchta v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 295 , 126 N.E.2d 151 ." [Also, In re Sobieski (1965), 246 Ind. 222 , 204 N.E.2d 353 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It has also been held applicable to driving `while under the influence' of intoxicating liquor, where the statute provides for an increased penalty on a second or subsequent conviction. Buchta v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 295 , 126 N.E.2d 151 .”
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.