Lewis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently April 2012
14 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 Smith v. United States · Neal Ruetz v. Russell E. Lash, Warden · State Ex Rel. Ruetz v. LaGrange Circuit Court · Sargent v. State · Lloyd 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree upon overwhelming evidence that he killed the Sheriff of Pulaski County who was attempting to thwart his escape from jail. Following the denial of the defendant’s motion to correct errors, which had been filed by counsel, the defendant, on November 18, 1968, filed a pro se motion for the appointment of appellate counsel and for a transcript of the trial proceedings. On the same day, he proceeded with “self-help” by escaping from the Indiana State Prison where he had been incarcerated, not to be returned to custody until May 81, 1969. On November 27, 1968, the trial court dismissed the aforementioned motion upon the grounds of the defendant’s escape.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lewis v. Duckworth“"It was Ruetz's return before the expiration of the appeal rights that distinguished his case from the many cases cited in the opinion and holding that it was not a denial of due process to dismiss an appeal upon the ground that the appellant had escaped and was a fugitive. We do not view Ruets v. Lash, supra, as requiring us to grant special dispensation to those who, by their voluntary acts, fail to meet the time limitations of the procedures that have been designed for uniform application."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prater v. State“if the procedures prescribed for all would-be-appellants are substantially complied with or that the failure of such compliance is excusable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Prater 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.