Utley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 1994 · most notably Walton v. State (1980), Chubb v. State (1994)
37 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 Jones v. Cunningham · Smith v. State · Asher v. State · DURRETT v. State · Byassee 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Any person being lawfully confined in any county jail or any prison of this state who while under lawful detention shall escape therefrom, or from the custody of the officer lawfully in charge of such person, shall be deemed guilty of jail breaking...."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Settle v. State · Isom v. State““Since the word ‘custody’ by itself is ambiguous we must construct [sic] § 10-1809, supra, to determine what the Legislature intended by using that word. In making this determination this Court must be guided by the well-settled rule of judicial construction that criminal statutes must be strictly construed against the State and in favor of the accused. Coleman v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 627 , 256 N.E.2d 389 . In practical effect this rule means that this Court, when faced with statutory language having two fairly well-settled meanings, will deem the Legislature to have intended the meaning which gives the narrowest range of applicability to the statute.” ( 258 Ind. at 446 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. . This construction is supported by the fact that where the Legislature did explicitly confront the issue of the penalty for ‘escaping’ from a state work-release program, the Legislature did not make it punishable as a crime but merely provided that the prisoner should be returned to prison to complete his sentence. Indiana Code 1971, 11-7-9-11 and 11-7-9-4, being Burns §§ 13-149 and 13-143.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sanders
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.