Pulliam v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 169 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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"There is no law to support the proposition that a failure to introduce into evidence a physical objection about which there has been testimony is fatal and that all testimony regarding the physical object must go out. To the extent that ... [Keiton v. State ] holds that the failure to introduce into evidence the physical object of a theft creates an insufficiency of the evidence and is a fatal defect, it is overruled."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rutledge v. State · 177 Ind. App. 696 - Raymer v. State

2. ““All this is to say that a defendant has no inherent right to have a presentence report considered prior to his sentencing. This is a privilege which the Legislature has granted defendants tried before a judge and which it has necessarily denied those defendants tried before a jury. This classification of defendants has been made against a background of differences of procedure which must necessarily exist between jury and bench trials. It has resulted from due process considerations of jury trials which do not permit the practical use of presentence reports. We believe these factors provide a rational basis sufficient to support the constitutionality of the classifications challenged by the Appellant and we can find no error.” Pulliam v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 381 , 345 N.E.2d 229 at 242-243 .”

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

3. ““It is well-established that this court, in determining the sufficiency of evidence, does not judge the credibility of witnesses nor weigh evidence. We look at only the evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. A verdict will not be disturbed if there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Citation omitted). See also, Hancock v. State (1976), 168 Ind. App. 663 , 345 N.E.2d 244, 250 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 170 Ind. App. 256 - Damrell v. State