Fry v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2002
11 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 · Smith v. State · Smith v. State · Frappier v. State · Beland 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[Where as here, the trial court enhance-es a sentence by ordering sentences to run consecutively, the record must include a statement of the court's reasons for selecting the sentence it imposes. The statement of reasons should contain: a) identification of all significant mitigating and aggravating - circumstances found; b) specific facts and reasons which lead the court to find the existence of each cireumstance; and c) articulation demonstrating that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances have been evaluated and balanced in determination of the sentence." Id. at 1806.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wills v. State“When we remanded this case to the trial court we directed that court to follow the standard regarding sentencing which is set forth in Fry v. State (1988), Ind., 521 N.E.2d 1302 . In Fry, we stated that when a trial court imposes an increased or consecutive sentence, the record must show a consideration by the judge of the facts of the specific crime and the relation of the sentence to the objectives to be served by that sentence. We further stated in Fry:”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wills 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.