Bryant v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2005 · most notably Roberts v. State (1978), Rhinehardt v. State (1985)
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 Baker v. State · Wedmore v. State · Woods v. State · Grimm v. State · Burton 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is no statute in Indiana making provision for a psychiatric examination of a prosecuting witness in any case. [Cases cited omitted]. “The question of stability and mental condition of the prosecuting witness herein concerned her competency and was a matter for the court to determine. [Cases cited omitted.] “The prosecuting witness was 17 years of age at the time of the trial and it is readily apparent that she was a competent witness under the statute, and her credibility was a question for the jury. [Cases cited omitted.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rickard v. State““The appellant next claims the trial court erred in not requiring that the prosecuting witness undergo a psychiatric examination even though none was requested by the appellant. This Court has previously held that it was not necessary for a trial court on its own motion to order a psychiatric examination of a prosecuting witness and that such failure was not reversible error. DeBruler v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 1 , 210 N.E.2d 666 , 6 Ind. Dec. 559 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rickard v. State““Under the statute the judge pro tempore had the right and the duty to perform as the regular judge. There was no showing in the motion for continuance of any cause for the same with the exception of the presence of the judge pro tempore instead of the regular judge. We hold that this in and of itself was not sufficient cause to now hold that the refusal of the continuance was reversible error.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Adams 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.