Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently December 2003
7 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 Davis v. State · Lewandowski v. State · Kelsie v. State · Watford v. State · 166 Ind. App. 395 - Dowdell 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the legislature had enacted an ameliorative amendment, the application of which would be constitutionally permissi-bie to persons who had committed the crime prior to its effective date, we would be willing to find a statement of legislative intent to apply the sentencing provisions of that ameliorative statute to all persons to whom such application would be possible and constitutional. Article I, Section 18, of the Indiana Constitution provides: 'The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice' If there is an express statement by the legislature that its former penalty was too severe and that a lighter punishment is proper as punishment for the commission of the proscribed act, then to hold that the more severe penalty should apply would serve no purpose other than to satisfy a constitutionally impermissible desire for vindic- tive justice. We could not ascribe to the legislature an intent to punish for vindictive purposes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vicory v. State“tive justice. We could not ascribe to the legislature an intent to punish for vindictive purposes." 166 Ind.App. at 401-2 n. 8, 336 N.E.2d at 702 n. 8.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Vicory 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.