Lewandowski v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Chandler v. State (1981), Dorton v. State (1981)
53 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 Roviaro v. United States · Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers · Scher v. United States · In re Quarles · Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Decker
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'An exhibit is admissible if the evidence regarding its chain of custody strongly suggests the exact whereabouts of the evidence at all times. The State need not exclude all possibilities of tampering, but need only provide "reasonable assurance”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Holt v. State · Borom v. State“a sufficient indication of the legislative intent that it be applied to all whom such application would be possible and constitutional.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Greene v. State · Elkins v. State““Under identical facts, the Court of Appeals in Maynard v. State, (1977) Ind. App., 367 N.E.2d 5 , held that Maynard should have been sentenced under the amended statute. In so doing, it applied the logic of dicta from its earlier case of Dowdell v. State, Ind.App., 336 N.E.2d 699 , 702 n.8. ... In Dowdell v. State, supra, Judge Staton indicated that the enactment of a [sic] ameliorative sentencing amendment was, in itself, a sufficient indication of the legislative intent that it be applied to all to whom such application would be possible and constitutional, thereby obviating application of the general savings statute, Ind.Code 1971, 1-1-5-1 (Burns Code Ed.). We are comfortable with that viewpoint, inasmuch as that statute is a general savings clause only, as opposed to those often appended to specific enactments, as in the case of the Revised Criminal Code of 1977. We are, therefore, in agreement with the holding in the Maynard case and hold that the defendant should have been sentenced in accordance with the decision therein. . . ” (Our emphasis) 2”
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.