Schmidt v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently January 2002 · most notably 12 Cal. 3d 686 - People v. Taylor (1974), 27 Cal. 4th 102 - People v. Lawley (2002)
31 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 Combs v. State · Schmidt v. State · McCarty 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘ “[Wjhere there [have] been two separate judicial determinations on the merits of the respective cases, and where they are contradictory, the law will impose a consistency to their findings.” Combs v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 294 , [301,] 295 N.E.2d 366 , [370].’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Jewell v. State · Williams v. State“"In this case both petitioner and the principal to the crime were convicted after separate jury trials on the merits. Both were charged and tried for the offense of first degree murder. The underlying crime in the case of the accessory, the petitioner here, was established as murder, while in the case of the principal, it was found to be manslaughter. This is the legally contradictory situation which was considered in Combs [v. State (1973) 260 Ind. 294 , 295 N.E.2d 866 ], and in which we must impose a consistency on the findings of the respective trials. We therefore hold that since there has been a determination on the merits of the degree of guilt of both the accessory and the principal to this crime and since they are contradictory, the petitioner is entitled to have her conviction and sentence reduced accordingly to conform to that of the principal." 300 N.E.2d at 87-88 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rainey v. State · McKnight 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.