Crosson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 state decisions

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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““With relation to the question of the business records exception to the hearsay rule, this exception does not mean that the sponsor of an exhibit must have personally made it, filed it, or have had first-hand knowledge of the transaction represented by it. He need only show that it is part of the records kept in the routine course of business and placed in the record by one authorized to do so, who had personal knowledge of the transaction represented at the time of entry. Jones v. State, (1977) Ind., 369 N.E.2d 418 at 421 ; American United Life Ins. Co. v. Peffley, (1973) 158 Ind.App. 29 at 36-37, [3] 01 N.E.2d 651 at 656 , rehearing denied, 158 Ind.App. 29 , 306 N.E.2d 131 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Myers v. State · Kinnel v. State

2. ““However, it must be recommended that it is not the office of a motion in limine to obtain a final ruling upon the ultimate admissibility of evidence. Rather, the purpose of the motion is to protect the proponent of potentially prejudicial matter from displaying it to the jury, making statements about it to the jury, or presenting it to the jury in any manner until the trial court has ruled upon its admissibility in the context of the trial itself.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Manning v. Allgood · Norton v. State