Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2012
8 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 Kollar v. State · Coburn v. State · Miller 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Hayworth v. State · EH v. State“As applicable in this case, a person’s control over property of another is “unauthorized” if it is exerted “... by creating or confirming a false impression in the other person ...” or “by promising performance that the person knows will not be delivered.” In the first case, of creating or confirming a false impression, the State of Indiana must prove that Mr. Duren created or confirmed a false impression about a current or preexisting fact, as opposed to something supposed to be done or to take place in the future. In the second case, of promising performance that the person knows will not be delivered, the State of Indiana must prove either that Mr. Du-ren never intended to perform his agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Haire, or that he knew at the time he made the agreement that there was a high probability that he would not be able to perform it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Duren v. State“[when proof is made under one of 4-1(b)'s subpara-graphs, the others are mere surplusage. No further proof is required.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hayworth 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.