Napier v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently November 2002 · most notably Burton v. State (1973), Turner v. State (1972)
38 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 Sheppard v. Maxwell · Rideau v. Louisiana · Marshall v. United States · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service · Thomas Patterson v. People of the State of Colorado Ex Rel Attorney General of the State of Colorado
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We hold that the case at bar does not come within the purview of Marshall v. United States (1959), 360 U.S. 310 , 79 S.Ct. 1171 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1250 . In the Marshall case evidence which had been excluded by the trial court as being inadmissible was published in the newspaper and read by the jurors. In the case at bar the evidence which the newspaper claimed to be forthcoming was never submitted by the State. There was no claim in the newspaper article that it was evidence which the trial court had excluded. It was merely a promise of things to come which did not materialize. The appellant does not show this Court nor do we find from the record how this situation could have prejudiced the appellant. In the absence of a showing of prejudice the trial court will be affirmed. Harris v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 681 , 231 N.E.2d 800 , 12 Ind.Dec. 279."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lindsey v. State“"This in and of itself might not be sufficient in some instances, but in the case at bar the objectionable part of the article was that three witnesses would testify at the appellant's trial to the effect that the appellant had told them that he was driving the automobile. Although witnesses did appear and testify against the appellant following the publishing of the article, no witnesses testified as to any such statement by the appellant. The jurors were expressly told by the judge that the statement contained in the article was absolutely false." 266 N.E.2d at 204 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lindsey v. State“"On Monday Judge Edward F. New, Jr. held that three `newly discovered witnesses' in the case may remain unidentified until the trial. The prosecution maintains the three have feared the consequences of testifying. The three were involved in a conversation with Napier in which he stated he was the driver of the car which Stidham was killed. * * *" (Emphasis added) 266 N.E.2d at 206 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lindsey v. State
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.