Bryan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 25 state decisions

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

1. “unless no reasonable person could find such sentence appropriate to the particular offense and offender for which such sentence was imposed.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Green v. State · Gaunt v. State

2. “Upon motion, trial may be postponed or continued in the discretion of the court, and shall be allowed upon a showing of good cause established by affidavit or other evidence. The court may award such costs as will reimburse the other parties for their actual expenses incurred from the delay. A motion to postpone the trial on account of the absence of evidence can be made only upon affidavit, showing the materiality of the evidence expected to be obtained, and that due diligence has been used to obtain it; and where the evidence may be; and if it is for an absent witness, the affidavit must show the name and residence of the witness, if known, and the probability of procuring the testimony within a reasonable time, and that his absence has not been procured by the act or connivance of the party, nor by others at his request, nor with his knowledge and consent, and what facts he believes to be true, and that he is unable to prove such facts by any other witness whose testimony can be as readily procured. If, thereupon, the adverse party will consent that, on the trial, the facts shall be taken as true if the absent evidence is written or documentary, and, in case of a witness, that he will testify to said facts as true, the trial shall not be postponed for that cause, and in such case, the party against whom such evidence is used, shall have the right to impeach such absent witness, as in the case where the witness is present, or his deposition is used.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stout v. State

3. “A motion for continuance based upon non-statutory grounds, such as an alleged need to have more time for trial preparation, is addressed to the trial court's discretion. Drollinger v. State (1980), [274] Ind. [5], 408 N.E.2d 1228, 1231 ; Hemphill v. State (1979), [ 270 Ind. 590 ] 387 N.E.2d 1324, 1326 . However, granting continuances in order to allow more time for preparation is generally not favored without a showing of good cause and will only be granted in the furtherance of justice. Miller v. State (1978), 267 Ind., 635, 638 , 372 N.E.2d 1168, 1170 ; Carlin v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 332, 335 , 259 N.E.2d 870, 872 . Whether good cause has been shown rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge and will be disturbed only if there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Miller v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 296 , 268 N.E.2d 299 ; Jay v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 534 , 206 N.E.2d 128 . In determining whether good cause exists, the trial judge may look to the circumstances of the case as well as the allegations of the motion and is not required to grant the motion simply because it complied with Ind.R.Tr.P. 58.4. Miller v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 635 , 372 N.E.2d 1168 ; Hooks v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 678 , 366 N.E.2d 645 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kindred v. State