Whitley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “results in, or is likely to result in, serious bodily injury to a person or substantial damage to property.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. B.R. v. State · Bailey v. State

2. “The language of the statutory definition of “tumultuous conduct” contemplates physical activity rising to the level of serious bodily injury, substantial property damage, or that either is likely to occur. Gebhard, [v. State, 484 N.E.2d 45 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) ]; IC 35-45-1-1. This language is unambiguous. The trial court could have reasonably-concluded that Whitley’s struggle with the police officers met this statutory definition, namely that there was a likelihood that either Whitley or the police officers could have sustained serious bodily injury during the attempt to handcuff Whitley. The record evidences a protracted physical struggle in which it took three officers to finally place handcuffs on Whitley. Carter testified that he was “unable to pin [Whitley] to the car” while trying to handcuff her. Cook stated that Whitley was “pulling and yanking and trying to get away.” David Keller, the other officer at the scene, testified that Whitley was “struggling against him” while being handcuffed. Thus, the trial court judge could have properly concluded that Whitley’s conduct during the struggle supported both the resisting arrest and disorderly conduct convictions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bailey v. State

3. “physical activity rising to the level of serious bodily injury, substantial property damage, or that either is lKkely to occur.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. State