State v. LENOX’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The effect of a trial court’s granting of a motion to strike improper testimony was considered in State v. Lenox (1968), 250 Ind. 482, 488, 489 , 237 N.E.2d 248, 252 , 253: “When a motion to strike testimony is sustained and the jury is instructed to disregard an answer, any objection or error is ordinarily cured. The trial court is in better position to determine the effect of such testimony than this Court. The trial court has a wide field of discretion as to withdrawing the case from the jury. This Court will interfere only where, notwithstanding the efforts of the trial court to correct the abuse, the irregularity appears to be such as to prevent a fair trial. N. Y. Central Ry. Co. v. Milhiser (1952), 231 Ind. 180 , 106 N.E.2d 453 , 108 N.E.2d 57 . Appellant has failed to. show how it was prejudiced by not having the case withdrawn from the jury. Furthermore, on this ground, any possible error was cured when the trial court gave Defendants’ (Lenox and Cook) Instruction No. 15, which reads as follows: ‘In considering all the evidence presented in this case in arriving at your decision, you are not to take into consideration voluntary statements made by any of the witnesses concerning sales of property made to the State of Indiana previous to the date of condemnation by the State.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 174 Ind. App. 1 - Fruehauf Trailer Division v. Thornton