Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 272 Ind. 122 - Owen v. State

Owen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2011 · most notably Ake v. Oklahoma (1985), Griffin v. State (1981)

60 state decisions

28019791980199020002010decided

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 United States Smith v. Baldi · Hester v. State · Roberts v. State · Madison v. State · Franks 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"[A] defendant who [was] awaiting trials [sic] on different crimes during the same period of time and who was convicted and sentenced separately on each should have full credit applied on each sentence ... Appellant's contention is correct that he should be given credit for time served from the day of his arrest until the day of his sentencing and it is so ordered."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “"The major requirement should be that the system of selection is not arbitrary ... and complete impartiality should be sought. Our statutory method for drawing jurors was devised for the purpose of putting selection beyond suspicion of advantage or favoritism and making the selection, as nearly as possible, random."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The major requirement should be that the system of selection is not arbitrary . and complete impartiality should be sought. Our statutory method for drawing jurors was devised for the purpose of putting selection beyond suspicion of advantage or favoritism and making the selection, as nearly as possible, random."”
    3 later decisions 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.