Cheeks v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 1994 · most notably State v. LeMaster (1983), Cherry v. State (1981)
3 federal appellate · 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 Terry v. Ohio · Luckett v. State · Bryant v. State · Williams v. State · Carter 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This Court has stated in the past that the propounding of questions by jurors is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Carter v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 13 , 234 N.E.2d 650 . At the same time, we have cautioned that this practice is not one to be encouraged, since the nature of such a situation naturally causes hesitation on the part of counsel who wish to object to a question. Cherry v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 298 , 280 N.E.2d 818 ; Carter v. State, supra. The procedure used in this case, in which counsel are summoned to the bench to see the question before it is posed, would seem to be intended to permit objections out of the hearing, if not the presence, of the jury. The Appellant has not shown that this procedure failed to remedy the problem raised in the Carter and Cherry decisions, nor has he presented any question posed through this procedure as improper or prejudicial. (The Appellant states that three such questions were posed, but does not include them or appropriate references to the record in his argument.) We can find no abuse of discretion under these circumstances. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"When Deputy Sheriff Geloff stopped the automobile in which the Appellant was riding, he was in possession of at least the following information on the crimes in question: 1) Two Negro males had robbed the Kroger store on north Michigan Road; 2) Near the time of the robbery, a large blue automobile was seen driving from the Kroger parking lot at a high rate of speed; 3) This blue car headed south on Michigan Road; 4) A woman's purse was taken during the robbery; 5) The erimes occurred at approximately 12:30 a.m., when it may be presumed that traffic was not at its peak level."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams 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.