Peak v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently January 2012
2 federal appellate · 18 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 Webb v. Jarvis · Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'n · INDIANAPOLIS HORSE PATROL, INC., a CORP. v. Ward · City of Indianapolis v. Cauley · Sullivan v. Fairmont Homes, Inc.
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a reasonable probability that substantial rights of the complaining party have been adversely affected.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The functions served by preliminary and final instructions differ. Preliminary instructions, read to the jury immediately after the jury is selected and sworn, are designed to inform the jury of the issues which it must ultimately decide and some of the legal principles which it may need to decide those issues. Final instructions, read to the jury immediately before it retires to deliberate and decide the issues, are designed to inform the jury on all relevant legal principles needed to decide those issues. These functions are not identical and the function of final instructions is not fulfilled by omitting an applicable principle of law merely because it was covered in the preliminary instructions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Warren v. State“(1) whether the tendered instruction correctly states the law, (2) whether the evidence at trial supports the giving of the instruction, and (3) whether the substance of the tendered instruction is covered by other instructions given.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ollis v. Knecht
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.