Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 549 N.E.2d 372 - Keller v. State

Keller v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 2018

24 state decisions

200199020002010decided

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 St. John v. State · Reed v. State · Stroud v. State · Keller v. Indiana Department of State Revenue · Rhodes v. Piper

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.

  1. “First, it affords opposing parties a fair opportunity to respond. Second, it promotes impartiality in the appellate tribunal; a court which must search the record and make up its own arguments because a party has presented them in perfunctory form runs the risk of being an advocate rather than an adjudicator.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““[e]ach error that appellant intends to raise ... shall be set forth specifically and followed by the argument applicable thereto.... The argument shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, the reasons in support of the contentions along with citations to the authorities ... and a clear showing of how the issues and contentions in support thereof relate to the particular facts of the case under review.” Ind.Appellate Rule 8.3(A)(7).”
    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.