Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 258 Ind. 481 - Green v. State

Green v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
February 1992
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 1992

16 state decisions

100197219801990decided

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 Madison v. State · Coates v. State · Lawrence 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"In our opinion, the prosecuting attorney has the option of determining whether or not he desires to make the charge specific under some specified section of the statute, or to make the charge general in nature when the evidence is not certain as to the methods used to gain control. The broadness of Paragraph (a) is no greater than the statute which originally defined larceny, or its definition under the common law. . . Contrary to the statement that we are without legislative guidance in Coates v. State (1968) 249 Ind. 357, 359 , 229 N.E.2d 640, 641 , we believe that the legislative intent and the guide to interpretation is set out in the statute. The fact that there are other included offenses which are more narrowly defined does not prohibit the state from prosecuting under a broader provision of the statute, such as the one in this case which covers any 'unauthorized control of the property of the owner.'"”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The fact that there are other included offenses, which are more narrowly defined does not prohibit the state from prosecuting under a broader provision of the statute, such as the one in this case which covers any ‘unauthorized control of the property of the owner.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““. . . all of the theft group of crimes except robbery, and traditional terminology has been abandoned in order that that purpose may be achieved. Consequently, whenever the terms ‘larceny,’ ‘obtaining by false pretenses,’ ‘embezzlement,’ ‘receiving or concealing property knowing it to have been stolen,’ ‘blackmail,’ or similar terms are used in any existing procedural or substantive statute or rule, they shall be construed to mean theft as described herein.” (Our emphasis.)'”
    1 later decision 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.