Brandon v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently January 2002 · most notably Rowan v. State (1982), Akins v. State (1981)
73 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 Patterson v. State · Ortiz v. State · Dillard v. State · Baum v. State · Reid 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Trial courts may exercise wide discretion in determining the admissibility of photographic evidence. The test to be applied is whether or not the photographs are relevant to any material issue in the case, with the issue of relevancy determined by whether or not the photographs evidence anything that a witness would be permitted to testify to if identified and verified by the witness." Brandon v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 150, 155 , 374 N.E.2d 504, 507 (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Price v. State · Dresser v. State“Without a clear showing of prejudicial imbalance between relevance on the one hand and the tendency to appeal to passion and prejudice on the other, the trial court's determination will not be disturbed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fryback v. State · Graves v. State““Ind.R.Ap.P. 8.3 requires an appellant predicating error upon the giving of an instruction, to set out in the argument section of his brief the verbatim objection made thereto, as well as the verbatim instruction. Defendant has failed to comply with this rule, and the error, if any, is deemed waived. Notwithstanding Ind.R.Ap.P. 8.3, we have searched the record and find that it discloses a mere naked objection to the giving of such instruction without stating the grounds therefor. Ind.R.Tr.P. 51(c) provides: ‘No party may claim as error the giving of an instruction unless he objects thereto * *, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.’ ” Brandon v. State (1978) 268 Ind. 150, 154 , 374 N.E.2d 504, 506-07 . (Emphasis in original).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ives 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.