Ballard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 158 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 164 later decisions — most recently November 2001 · most notably Guardiola v. State (1978), Pawloski v. State (1978)
3 federal appellate · 158 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 North Carolina v. Pearce · Anderson v. Alabama · Langley v. State · Dillard v. State · Lindsey 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 164 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Prosecution is initiated against a petitioner who has successfully sought relief under any proceeding for post-conviction remedy and a conviction is subsequently obtained; or (2) A sentence has been set aside under a post-conviction remedy and the successful petitioner is to be resen-tenced; the sentencing court may impose a more severe penalty than that originally imposed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is obvious here that by a combination of plea bargaining and invocation of the Post-Conviction Rule, the defendant has manipulated the State into a position of impotence. He succeeded, prior to a trial upon the issue of guilty, in placing a ceiling upon the sentence he could receive-a ceiling greatly lowered from the one fixed by statute for the offense he committed. It is inevitable in an imper-feet system, that those not justly entitled may sometimes have the benefit of rules designed to protect the rights of the innocent and the abused. The intent of Section 10 is to assure that the avenue provided by the sections of the rule preceding it may be freely traversed. This does not come to pass if the would-be petitioner, in order to utilize the rule, must pay the toll of risking a penalty more severe than the one he is presently under. That it has, in this case, worked an injustice of the State of Indiana is unfortunate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is an abundance of Indiana cases holding that reversible error will not exist if a witness’s in-court identi-fictation of an accused is supportable by a factual basis which is independent of allegedly erroneous pre-trial identification procedures. [Citing authorities.]””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.