Pence v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Hammes v. Brumley (1995), Indiana Wholesale Wine & Liquor Co. v. State Ex Rel. Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission (1998)
54 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 Massachusetts v. Mellon · Dague v. Piper Aircraft Corp. · Ross v. Knott · State v. Rankin · Zoercher v. Agler
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For the disposition of cases and controversies, the Court requires adverse parties before it. Standing focuses generally upon the question whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the Court’s power. However, more fundamentally, standing is a restraint upon this Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction in that we cannot proceed where there is no demonstrable injury to the complainant before us.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage“Indiana cases recognize certain situations in which public rather than private rights are at issue and hold that the usual standards for establishing standing need not be met. This Court [has] held ... that when a case involves enforcement of a public rather than a private right the plaintiff need not have a special interest in the matter nor be a public official.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““I favor enforcement of this constitutional imperative and believe that Indiana courts should seriously consider claims that enactments violate this requirement. Particularly in view of the recently renewed commitment of Indiana citizens to the single-subject requirement,! 1 ] courts should henceforth invalidate nonconforming statutory provisions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.