Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 261 Ind. 567 - Layton v. State

Layton v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
August 2003
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2003

22 state decisions

1401974198019902000decided

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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Chaffin v. Stynchcombe · Price v. Georgia · Layton v. State · Layton 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Secondly, the same issue, although differently assigned, was reviewed and determined upon the defendant's direct appeal and is therefore res judica-ta.... This issue was decided against the defendant and is final, notwithstanding that [Price and Causey ], cases upon which he here leans heavily for support, had not yet been decided.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “I. Did the defendant waive his objection to the State's interrogating the prospective jurors with reference to their beliefs concerning the death penalty, by stipulating that the examination not be reported? IL. - Was the verdict of guilty ... invalid by reason of the State's having so interrogated the veniremen? What the defendant is saying is that it is not necessary for us to know the specific questions asked of the prospective jurors, since we know generally that they were related to death penalty sentiments. But we do not know that such questions were asked, only that they were objected to and that the trial judge did not consider them to be improper. We are asked, then, to conclude that certain questions were asked from a record that merely disclosed an in limine motion to preclude them and an adverse ruling upon the motion. This we cannot do. There are two additional reasons why we cannot go to the second issue. Layton IIL, 307 N.E.2d at 478-79 .”
    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.