Gregory v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently November 2012 · most notably Roberts v. State (1977), Williams v. State (1980)
56 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 Hitch v. State · Rhoades v. State · Hamilton v. State · Rains v. State · Jacoby 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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Although the statute defining robbery does not use the word "intent", it is there by irrefutable inference. In Indiana, all crimes are statutory, but this does not render merely malum prohibi-tum those crimes that are, and always were, malum in se. That which is merely malum prohibitum, ie. an offense only because prohibited by statute, does not require intent and knowledge, unless specified by the prohibiting statute. However, that which is malum in se, ie. inherently and naturally evil as adjudged by the senses of a civilized society, is wrong, and criminal by reason of such knowledge or intent; and such crimes taken over from the common law,-the traditional crimes, including robbery and theft-have always included the mens rea as an element. It follows and has been so held, that the omission of such words as "knowingly" and "intent" from a statute defining a crime is not conclusive on whether or not guilty knowledge is an essential element of such crime. Whether or not eriminal intent is an element of a statutory crime is a matter of statutory construction and must be determined in view of the legislative intent."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Sewell v. State · State v. Keihn““ ‘Owner’ means a person, other than the actor, who has possession of or any other interest in the property involved, even though such interest or possession is unlawful, and without whose consent the actor has no authority to obtain or exert the complained of control over the property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The requisite felonious intent is inferred by the allegations of violence, putting in fear and taking from the person, just as it is inferred in the statute.””
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.