Young v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently May 2014
6 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 Solem v. Helm · Hardin v. State · Clark v. State · Fointno v. State · McCollum 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Factors which indicate a predisposition to sell drugs include: knowledge of drug prices; knowledge of drug sources and suppliers; use and understanding of terminology of the drug market; solicitation of future drug sales; and raultiple sales to undercover officers.... [[Image here]] Proof of predisposition is relevant only to ensure that, on the particular occasion, "the proscribed activity was not solely the idea of the police officials." See Baird v. State (1983), Ind., 446 N.E.2d 342, 343 (citation omitted). This purpose, coupled with the factors we use to determine predisposition, support the conclusion that the critical circumstances are those that exist at the time of the solicitation, and not before.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dockery v. State“no reasonable person could find such sentence appropriate to the particular offense and the offender for which such sentence was imposed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McGowan v. State“the proscribed activity was not solely the idea of the police officials.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dockery 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.