Dipert v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently December 2004 · most notably Commonwealth v. Mutina (1975), State v. Hammonds (1976)
3 federal appellate · 79 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Pinkerton v. State · Aszman v. State · Butler v. State · Baker v. State · Sawyer 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant, through an appropriate channel, such as a curative instruction or statement by the judge, will be entitled to inform the jury of such procedures where an erroneous view of the law on [the] subject has been planted in their minds.”). . Contrast the experts’ testimony in Rimmasch , which comprised almost two-thirds of the trial transcript, occupied several trial days, and exerted a”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Robison v. State · State v. Harmon““... A trial court may instruct that the question of insanity, or any other issue in a case, should be carefully considered by the jury because a due regard for the ends of justice and the welfare of society demand that parties guilty of a crime be convicted. . . .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It can hardly be said to contain the statement of any proposition of law, but is rather in the nature of a general disparagement of the defense of insanity, which the accused had pleaded, as provided by statute. A case might possibly arise in which such a statement could be appropriately made by the court. As the judgment in the present case must be reversed for other reasons, we do not determine whether or not it constituted reversible error in this case. It is sufficient to say that, as at present constituted, the court does not regard with favor any statements by the trial court which are designed to cast discredit or suspicion upon any defense which is recognized by the law as legitimate, and which an accused person is making in apparent good faith. In this respect, we are unable to appreciate any well-grounded distinction between the defense of insanity, self-defense, or alibi. Aszman, supra, 123 Ind. at 359-360 , 24 N. E. at 127 ,” as quoted in Dipert, supra, at page 408.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Huddleston 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.