Moore v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2002 · most notably Averhart v. State (1984), Lucas v. Frazee (1984)
26 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 Dortch v. Lugar · Stephens v. State · 160 Ind. App. 256 - Smith v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company · 160 Ind. App. 191 - Dunbar v. State · Adams 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he summary of facts required by [Ind. Appellate Rule] 8.3(A)(5) is not intended to be a portion of the appellant’s argument. It should be a concise narrative summary of the facts in a light most favorable to the judgment.... It is to be informative, not persuasive.” Moore v. State, 426 N.E.2d 86, 90 (Ind.Ct.App.1981) (emphases supplied). 2 . Ind.Code § 35-50-2-5 reads in relevant part,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Allen v. State · Kirk v. Kirk“[a] statement of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The statement of the case is intended to assist this court by setting forth the procedural posture of the case. Although it is unnecessary to include the contents and dates of all of the pleadings, hearings and orders, it is necessary to accurately report all entries which explain the trial court’s actions and affect the issues on appeal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morris 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.