Ford v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2016
14 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 · Rideout v. United States · Loyd v. State · Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. · Marsillett 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he granting of permission to reopen a case is within the discretion of the trial court and the decision will be reviewed only to determine whether or not there has been an abuse of that discretion. Gorman v. State (1984), Ind., 463 N.E.2d 254, 257 . Among the factors which weigh in the exercise of discretion are whether there is any prejudice to the opposing party, whether the party seeking to reopen appears to have rested inadvertently or purposely, the stage of the proceedings at which the request is made, and whether any real confusion or inconvenience would result from granting the request. Flynn v. State (1986), Ind., 497 N.E.2d 912, 914 . Two conditions must be shown to exist to justify a court of appellate jurisdiction in setting aside a ruling made by a trial court in the exercise of judicial discretion: 1) the action complained of must have been unreasonable in light of all attendant circumstances or it must have been clearly untenable or unreasonable; and 2) the action was prejudicial to the rights of the complaining party. Flynn, 497 N.E.2d at 916 , citing Allman v. State (1968), 253 Ind. 14, 19-20 , 235 N.E.2d 56, 59 . A party should be afforded the opportunity to reopen its case to submit evidence which could have been part of its case in chief. Gorman, 463 N.E.2d at 257 . Given [a] claim of insufficient evidence, “the State should have had an opportunity to supply such insufficiency or reopen the case for that purpose, even after it had rested, since a trial ”
1 later decision 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.