Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 512 NE2D 841 - Perry v. State

Perry v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
December 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Hannon v. Metropolitan Development Commission (1997), Stewart v. State (1990)

1 federal appellate · 33 state decisions

1701987199020002010decided

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 Langley v. State · Frazier v. State · State v. Lindsey · Twyman v. State · State Ex Rel. McManamon v. Blackford Circuit Court

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

  1. “... the neglect for an unreasonable or unexplained length of time, under circumstances permitting diligence, to do what in law should have been done. It is an implied waiver arising from knowledge of existing conditions and an acquiescence in them, the neglect to assert a right, as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time, more or less great, and other circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party and thus operating as a bar in a court of equity.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Repeated contacts with the criminal justice system, consultation with attorneys and incarceration in a penal institution with legal facilities are all facts from which the fact finder may infer knowledge.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “For laches to bar relief, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, first, that the petitioner unreasonably delayed in seeking relief and second, that the State has been prejudiced by the delay.”
    3 later decisions 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.