Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 427 NE2D 896 - Higginbotham v. State

Higginbotham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
April 2002
most recently cited

15 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Springer v. United States · Bailey v. State · Sears v. State · 181 Ind. App. 5 - Haeger v. State · 166 Ind. App. 378 - Borosh 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"Thus, defendant was charged in a manner requiring proof of causation. The statute required causation. Defendant tendered complete instructions on causation. The trial court concluded causation was not required. The thrust of the defense was that even if intoxicated or driving while intoxicated, such was in no way the cause of the accident or death. Based upon these circumstances we hold defendant was harmed by the lack of instruction on causation. The instruction did trace the wording of the statute as far as the 'results in' language. It also spoke in terms of loss of normal control of one's faculties caused by use of alcohol. However, the instruction did not require the jury to find, in order to convict defendant, that the death was caused by or a consequence of the operation of a vehicle with loss of normal control of faculties because of intoxication. A term of such considerable generality, Bailey [v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 56 ], supra, requires definition in a case such as the one before us where the core of the defense was that the intoxication did not in any way relate to the accident."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““If an injury to any other person arises as a consequence of the conduct of the accused in committing a robbery, the offense is properly regarded as a class A felony. If the injury does not so arise attribution of a class A felony is improper.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““A person who operates a vehicle while intoxicated commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class C felony if it results in the death of another person. . . . ””
    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.