Kelly v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2017
2 federal appellate · 22 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 Rideout v. United States · Loyd v. State · Case v. State · Addis v. State · Manna 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) [a] person who knowingly or intentionally: (1) confines another person without the other person’s consent; or (2) removes another person, by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force, from one (1) place to another; commits criminal confinement. Except as provided in subsection (b), the offense of criminal confinement is a Class D felony. (b) The offense of criminal confinement defined in subsection (a) is: [[Image here]] (2) a Class B felony if it: [[Image here]] (B) results in serious bodily injury to a person other than the confining or removing person....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. McIntosh v. State · Redman v. State“confinement by non-consensual restraint in place and confinement by removal”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Idle v. State · McIntosh v. State“"It is evident that [I.C. 85-42-3-8], framed in the disjunctive, includes two distinct types of criminal confinement by encompassing both confinement by non-consensual restraint in place and confinement by removal." Kelly, supra, 585 N.E.2d at 140. * * * * * a "The jury's general verdict indicates that they did find the defendant guilty of confinement, but does not indicate whether the conviction was based upon a violation of Ind.Code § 35-42-3-3(a)(1), non-consensual confinement, as charged in the information, or Ind.Code § 35-42-3-3(a)(2), confinement by removal, as allowed by the instructions but not charged by information." Id. at 142.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Idle v. State · Evans 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.