Salary v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
November 1996
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 179 Ind. App. 143 - McFarland v. State · Myers v. State · Hestand v. State · Crawford 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The information plays a crucial role in guaranteeing due process right, for “[b]oth the Indiana Constitution and the United States Constitution provide that an accused shall be informed of the charges against him,” McFarland v. State (1979), 179 Ind.App. 143 , 384 N.E.2d 1104, 1109 , and “[d]ue process requires that defendants be notified of the charges against them.” Crawford v. State (1987), Ind.App., 502 N.E.2d 1361, 1363 , reh. denied, trans. denied. The purpose behind an information is to give the defendant notice of the crime for which he is charged, so that he is able to prepare a defense, [citation omitted]. Thus, “[c]onvietion of an offense neither charged nor included within the criminal conduct alleged constitutes a denial of due process.” McFarland, supra, at 1109 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“On or about the 8th day of June, 1995, in St. Joseph County, State of Indiana, MICHAEL TOWNSEND knowingly distributed a substance, other than a controlled substance or a drug for which a prescription is required under federal or state law, that was expressly or impliedly represented to be a controlled substance, that was distributed under circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the substance was a controlled substance, or by overall appearance would lead a reasonable person to believe the substance was a controlled substance, to-wit: cocaine. All of which is contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, to-wit: Indiana Codes 35-38-4-4.6(a)(4) and 35-38-4^.5,....”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Townsend 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.