Stevens v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
77 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Solem v. Stumes (1984), Porter v. State (1979)
77 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 Harris v. New York · Oregon v. Hass · Pirtle v. State · Hill v. State · Flowers 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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"We take the statutory requirement that a grand juror be a householder to have several purposes. By it, the Legislature intended that grand jurors be actual members of the community served by the grand jury. They must also have had the experience of making important and binding practical decisions of everyday living. And they must be capable of making important decisions independent ly of family or relatives or others."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wooten v. State · Newman v. State““We believe that the above instruction is a correct statement of Indiana law, but that it is not necessary to give an instruction defining ‘mental disease or defect’ unless the trial court in its discretion determines that such a definition is necessary to dispel jury confusion.” (Emphasis added.) Stevens v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 396 , 354 N.E.2d 727 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““We believe that the trial court pursued the proper course in dealing with the potential prejudice of this juror: a hearing, out of the presence of the remainder of the jury to determine whether (1) the juror’s inaccurate response indicates bias or lack of disinterest, and (2) whether the hearing itself has created a bias in the juror. The court should then allow the defendant to challenge the juror for cause, and should excuse the juror and declare a mistrial if bias is found to be present.” Stevens v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 396, 403 , 354 N.E.2d 727, 732 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McFarland 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.