Davis v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably Tumulty v. State (1996), Garringer v. State (1983)
1 federal appellate · 47 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 Boykin v. Alabama · Davis v. State · German v. State · Hoskins v. State · Strickland 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[MJjost important for our purposes, is this recent Indiana Supreme Court language: 'Strict compliance with our stat ute [IC 85-85-1-2(a), (b) ] is demanded of our trial courts in order to determine that any waiver of fundamental constitutional rights is knowingly and intelligently given”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Austin v. State · Sides v. State“'The court shall not accept a plea of guilty from the defendant without first addressing the defendant and (a) Determining that he understands the nature of the charge against him; (b) Informing him that by his plea of guilty he is admitting the truth of all facts alleged in the indictment or information or to an offense included thereunder and that upon entry of such plea the court shall proceed with judgment and sentence; (c) Informing him that by his plea of guilty he waives his rights to a public and speedy trial by jury to face the wit nesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor and to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant may not be compelled to testify against himself; (d) Informing him of the maximum possible sentence and minimum sentence for the offense charged and of any possible increased sentence by reason of the fact of a prior conviction or convictions, and of any possibility of the imposition of consecutive sentences; (e) Informing him that the court is not a party to any agreement which may have been made between the prosecutor and the defense and is not bound thereby. [IC 35-4.1-1-8, as added by Acts 1978, P.L. 325, § 4, p. 1750.1”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Grimes v. State · Beahan 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.