Guardiola v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
126 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably 137 Ill. 2d 382 - People v. Murray (1990), Bieghler v. State (1985)
126 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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · South Dakota v. Opperman · Sedillo v. United States · Cady v. Dombrowski · Cooper v. State of California
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[Ajsserted errors to be argued on appeal must be separately stated in the motion to correct errors. If this is not done, such errors will be deemed waived on appeal; they cannot be argued for the first time in appellate briefs. Spivey v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 257 , 274 N.E.2d 227 . There is an exception to this rule for sufficiency of evidence claims. Collins v. State, (1977) Ind., [ 266 Ind. 430 ] 364 N.E.2d 750 . For other issues, however, the requirement is also to the effect that errors be stated with specificity in the motion to correct errors. The errors ‘should not be hidden in a generality to be later specifically raised on appeal,’ Finch v. State, (1975) 264 Ind. 48, 50-51 , 338 N.E.2d 629, 630 , and they must be ‘accompanied by a statement of the facts and grounds upon which the errors are based,’ Ind.R.Tr.P. 59(B) [now found in 59(D)(2) ]. The rule’s purpose is to allow the trial court the first opportunity to determine or remedy contended issues. Finch, supra.” (emphasis in original).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(2) Content of Motion. In all cases in which a motion to correct error is made, such motion shall separately state the error or errors which are claimed. The error claimed is not required to be stated under, or in the language of the bases for the motion allowed by this rule, by statute, or by other law. Each claimed error shall be stated in specific rather than general terms, and shall be accompanied by a statement of the facts and grounds upon which the errors are based. (Emphasis supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7) reads in part: ... The argument shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, the reasons in support of the contentions along with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied upon, and a clear showing of how the issues and contentions in support thereof relate to the particular facts of the case under review. (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.