Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 267 Ind. 282 - Purdy v. State

Purdy v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
4
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably Jameison v. State (1978), Muse v. State (1981)

42 state decisions

3001977198019902000decided

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 Martin v. State · Willett v. Porter · Jones v. Patten · Rourke v. Rourke · Quinn 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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In this case, the trial court went further and not only sent the instructions into the jury room, but also failed to instruct the jury either preliminarily or finally in open court. This duty was delegated to the foreman of the jury under circumstances where it cannot be known how the job was done, or whether it was done at all.” Id. at 289 , 369 N.E.2d at 636 .”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ ‘The principle is, that the jury shall take the law from the Court. The mode in which the Court communicates with the jury is by addressing them in open Court. The jury take the law from the Court through the ear. By so doing, they generally stand upon equality, because none but men with hearing ears are competent jurors. In the juryroom, then, each depends upon his own recollection of the instructions, and upon the impression they made upon him for their meaning, their construction; and, this standing upon an equality, if they differ,, they should come into Court, and, in presence of the parties, let the Court be interpreter of its own instructions. But if; instead of this being done, the court sends the written instructions to the jury, inasmuch as jurors are not upon equality in their ability to read and interpret writing, it puts it in the power of the sharp ones on the jury to read, and become the interpreters for the Court, and mislead their less skillful fellow-jurors. We think instructions should not be sent to the juryroom, without consent of both parties.’ ” Purdy v. State, supra, 267 Ind. at 286 , 369 N.E.2d at 634-35 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[wJhen the jury has been sworn the court shall instruct in writing as to the issues for trial, the burden of proof, the credibility of witnesses, and the manner of weighing the testimony to be received.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.