Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 255 Ind. 176 - Dudley v. State

Dudley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
January 2001
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably Johnson v. State (1972), Rowan v. State (1982)

39 state decisions

2101970198019902000decided

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 State v. Pokini · Tyler v. State · Cluck v. State · Long v. State · Chizum 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Our judgment is that it is a discretionary matter with the court whether or not it thinks it would be reasonable for jurors to take some notes to support their memory with reference to the complexities of any particular case. An abuse of such discretion must be shown to constitute error. Judges and lawyers alike, as we have previously said, consistently take notes during trial proceedings for the very same purpose. We see no reason why, normally, a juror should be deprived of this assist or help in arriving at his verdict. We find no error presented on this point.” Dudley v. State, (1970) 255 Ind. 176 , 263 N.E.2d 161, 164 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In our opinion the ‘tablet of his memory’ is a very weak reed for a juror to lean upon in place of written notes. We are inclined to follow what common sense in everyday life tells us is true. At the same time, we do not mean to approve continuous note-taking by jurors, which would distract from listening to the evidence. Minor note-taking for the purpose of supporting the juror’s memory, in our opinion, is reasonable and certainly should not be disapproved. Most jurors are men of sensibility, and to be deprived of taking notes would, to them, appear to be a rather ridiculous court deprivation in many situations, such as during a prolonged trial with complicated facts.” 255 Ind. at 180-1 , 263 N.E.2d at 163 ^.”
    2 later decisions 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.