Webb v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Sullivan v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa. (1992), Joseph L. Bailey v. Kevin C. Andrews (1987)
4 federal appellate · 18 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 Barker v. Wingo · Ashe v. Swenson · Bruce v. State · United States v. Mespoulede · Bond 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he application of the principle of collateral estoppel involves a two-step process: (1) determine what the first judgment decided; and (2) examine how that determination bears on the second case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Appellant tied up Mrs. Williams with neckties and looked around for items to steal. Mrs. Williams told Appellant not to hurt her since she was dying from cancer. Appellant then heard a noise and went to investigate it and came upon Mr. Williams sitting in a chair with blood all over him. Appellant then told Morrison that the killing was dumb, since Mrs. Williams could identify him. Morrison said that he would take care of "it" whereupon he ran into the bedroom and killed her. Appellant and Morrison attempted to put the house back in order and left. Appellant later gave these same details to the police." Webb v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 180, at 182-183 , cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1081 , 104 S.Ct. 1449 , 79 L.Ed.2d 767 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Webb v. State“Where a previous judgment of acquittal was based upon a general verdict, as is usually the case, this approach requires a court to [ ]examine the record of a prior proceeding, taking into account the pleadings, evidence, charge, and other relevant matter, and conclude whether a rational jury could have grounded its verdict upon an issue other than that which the defendant seeks to foreclose from consideration.[]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Griffin 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.