Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 409 N.E.2d 1124 - Lasko v. State

Lasko v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2004

8 state decisions

70198019902000decided

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 25 Cal. 3d 238 - Pryor v. Municipal Court · Pryor v. Municipal Court · Caudill v. State · Green v. State · State v. Baysinger

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

  1. “"'Webster defines "public" as "open to common and general use, participation, or enjoyment" of the public. It has been held that the term "public place" as used in statutes pertaining to gambling includes any place which for the time being is made public by the assemblage of people who go there with or without invitation and without restraint. Roberts v. State, 1908, 4 Ga. App. 207 , 60 S.E. 1082, 1085 . "'From a consideration of the terms "accessible", "public", and "public place", as defined hereinabove, together with the purpose of the Act, we have concluded that the phrase "in any place accessible to the public" as used in §, 10-2830, supra, means any place where the public is invited and are [sic] free to go upon special or implied invitation-a place available to all or a certain segment of the public.'" 897 N.E.2d at 588.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"[a] private locked room in which two adult consenting persons engage in promiscuous conduct is not a `public place' within the meaning of the Public Indecency statute, Ind. Code § 35-45-4-1 ." 409 N.E.2d at 1126 .”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “"The object of this rule of interpretation is to establish a rule of certainty for the protection of the individual. Caudill v. State (1946), 224 Ind. 531 , 69 N.E.2d 549 . Such a rule is also in keeping with the presumption of innocence... ."”
    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.