Mudd v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2008
8 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 Strickland v. Washington · Blockburger v. United States · Rideout v. United States · Chapman v. United States · Elmore 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Here, possession of marijuana is the included offense because it is established by less than all the elements required to establish possession of marijuana by cultivation. 5 Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate the conviction and sentence for Count II, possession of marijuana. Affirmed in part; remanded with instructions. BAKER, J., and FRIEDLANDER, J., concur. 1 . Ind.Code § 35-48-4-11. 2 . Indiana Code Section 35-48-1-19 defines”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Britt v. State“[Olne cannot knowingly or intentionally manufacture the drug [marijuana] without also possessing it to that end.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Britt v. State“criminal proceedings [are] governed by the statutory provision in effect at the time of the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ramon 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.