State v. Ingram’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 2003
2 federal appellate · 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 55 Ill. 2d 356 - Reese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad · Bedwell v. Debolt · 145 Ind. App. 159 - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Otis · Martin v. Lilly · Lum v. Stinnett
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It was the State who introduced into evidence the monetary sum ($3,500) which Ingram and Kirk had received pursuant to the loan receipt agreement. Consequently, I would hold that the State cannot now complain of the admission of the loan receipt agreement, which Ingram and Kirk offered in rebuttal to the testimony regarding the payment they received under the agreement. [Original emphasis].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“There is no way to gauge the impact of such matters upon the jury. They clearly represent an extraneous and potentially prejudicial circumstance; one which is, at best, unproductive towards securing a fair trial and just result on the merits.”
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.