DURRETT v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 state decisions

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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . There are many factual situations where a charge could be brought under one of several different statutes. Indeed, on some occasions, charges have been brought in alternative counts with the different counts being based upon different criminal statutes. It is sufficient if the indictment or affidavit charges and the evidence proves an offense under a statute, even though the charge might have been brought under a different statute providing a lesser penalty. 15 I.L.E. Indictments and Affidavits §41 — 42, p. 563; Morgan v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 374 , 151 N. E. 98 ; Myers v. State (1883), 92 Ind. 390 .””

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Languell v. State · Padgett v. State

2. ““However, it is also true that a defendant seeking discharge under the statute involved [Burns’ Ind. Stat. Anno. § 9-1403 (1956 Repl.)] has the burden of alleging and showing that he did not contribute to or cause the delay. Epps v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 515 , 192 N. E. 2d 459 ; State v. Beckwith (1944), 222 Ind. 618 , 57 N. E. 2d 193 ; Sullivan v. State (Flick v. State) (1939), 215 Ind. 343 , 19 N. E. 2d 739 ; Alyea v. State (1926), 198 Ind. 364 , 152 N. E. 801 , 153 N. E. 775 . If the defendant did not in fact contribute to the delay, it would have been a simple matter to offer testimony showing that he took no action contributing to the delay and showing that there was time during which the case could have been tried. This the appellants did not see fit to do. By going to trial without submitting evidence to establish the necessary facts to entitle them to discharge, the appellants have waived their right to a prompt trial as defined by the relevant statutes.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Norris v. State

3. ““10-701 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
   e.g. Padgett v. State