Wright v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 188 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 196 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Sykes v. United States (2011), Sykes v. United States (2011)
4 federal appellate · 188 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 Blackburn v. State · Lawrence v. State · Hester v. State · 182 Ind. App. 156 - Roddy v. State · Commissioner of Social Services v. Klein
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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if, in view of this dispute, a jury could conclude that the lesser offense was committed but not the greater, then it is reversible error for a trial court not to give an instruction, when requested, on the inherently or factually included lesser offense.”
42 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[T]he relationship between Theft and Criminal Conversion is paradigmatically that of a greater to an inherently lesser included offense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. MQM v. State · M.Q.M. v. State“(a) A person who knowingly or intentionally touches an individual who: (1) is or was a spouse of the other person ... in a rude, insolent, or angry manner that results in bodily injury to the person described in subdivision (1), (2), or (3) commits domestic battery, a Class A misdemeanor. (b) However, the offense under subsection (a) is a Class D felony if the person who committed the offense ... (2) committed the offense in the physical presence of a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, knowing that the child was present and might be able to see or hear the offense.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Lemond v. State · True 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.