Loza v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

68 state decisions

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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This statute has not been previously interpreted by our courts, and our research discloses no interpretation of any similar statute by any sister state. We are controlled, therefore, by the express language of the statute itself and applicable rules of statutory construction, the objective of such rules being to determine and effect the intent of the Legislature, (citations omitted) However, in so doing, we are also required to prevent absurdity and hardship and to favor public convenience.” (citation omitted)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 178 Ind. App. 8 - Hutcherson v. State · 513 F. Supp. 19 - Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp.

2. “Issue IV. Defendant next charges that the offense of aggravated assault and battery, in the instant case, was not a lesser included offense of assault and battery with intent to kill, because the elements of "great bodily harm" or "disfigurement" requisite to aggravated assault and battery were necessarily included in the charging affidavit. This issue is not reviewable in this appeal. Questions not properly raised in the trial proceedings are not reviewable on appeal. James v. State (1974), [ 261 Ind. 495 ], 307 N.E.2d 59 ; Pinkerton v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 610 , 283 N.E.2d 376 . The defendant not only did not object to the court's instruction on the lesser included offense, which included aggravated assault and battery, his tendered instruction, although refused for other reasons, included aggravated assault and battery as an offense included in the offense charged.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Moore v. State

3. “"We are greatly disturbed by what appears to be a growing tendency among a number of lawyers to be careless, if not deliberately misleading, in their representations to the Court through their briefs. Recognizing the requirement that a lawyer represent his client zealously he, nevertheless, is required to remain within the bounds of law and ethical considerations. Clearly a deliberate misleading of the Court upon factual matters is misconduct demanding severe disciplinary action." Loza v. State (1975) 263 Ind. 124 , 325 N.E.2d 173, 179 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In re Contempt Proceeding Against Miller