Aschliman v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In June, 1989, Truman and Mary Lou Barger watched Aschliman pull into the Fiechters' driveway. Mr. Barger watched through binoculars as Aschli-man walked first to the door of the Fiechters' home, then to the locked garage door which he unsuccessfully attempted to open. Aschliman next entered the screened-in porch, left, and went to the tool shed where the Fiechters stored their pry bar. Aschliman then returned and re-entered the screened-in porch and used the Fiechters' pry bar in his attempt to pry open the doors from the porch to the living area of the house. Mr. Barger then wrote down a description of Aschliman's car and his license number, and telephoned the Fiechters' home, to frighten Aschliman. Aschliman left the screened-in porch, threw the pry bar under a tree, and drove away. Mr. Barger found the pry bar, saw the damage to the doors, and then called the police.”

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

2. “That on or about the 4th day of June, 1989, at and in the County of Wells and in the State of Indiana said defendant did then and there knowingly exert unauthorized control over property of another person, to-wit: a pry bar owned by Ken E. and Debra S. Fiechter, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, all of which is contrary to the form of the statutes and in such cases made and provided, to-wit: 1.C. 85-43-4-2, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.”

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

3. “by careful drafting of the factual allegations of the information, the State may foreclose the availability of a lesser-included offense instruction.”

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