Allen v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A party is entitled to a change of judge only "if the historical facts recited in the affidavit support a rational inference of bias or prejudice." Crim. R. 12(B). This is not limited to cases in which the judge has expressed an opinion on guilt or innocence or the merits of the case. It does not depend on a subjective showing that the trial judge is actually biased or prejudiced. In considering a motion for change of judge, the challenged judge's ruling does not depend upon a self-assessment of actual bias or prejudice. The judge must instead determine whether the historical facts presented in support of the motion lead to a rational inference of bias or prejudice.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keith D. Abney v. State of Indiana · Voss v. State

2. “(D) Time Period for Piling Request for Change of Judge or Change of Venue. In any criminal action, no change of judge or change of venue from the county shall be granted except within the time herein provided. (1) Thirty Day Rule. An application for a change of judge or change of venue from the county shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the initial hearing. Provided, that where a cause is remanded for a new trial by the court on appeal, such application must be filed not later than thirty (30) days ; after the defendant first appears in person before the trial court following remand. : (2) - Subsequently •. Discovered Grounds. If the applicant first obtains knowledge of the cause for change of venue. from the judge or from the county after the time above limited, the applicant may file the application, which shall be ■verified by the party specifically alleging when the cause was first -discovered, how it was discovered, the facts showing the cause for a change, and why such cause could not have been discovered before by the exercise of due diligence. Any opposing party shall have the right to file counter-affidavits on such issue within ten (10) days, and after a hearing on the motion, the ruling of the court may be reviewed only for abuse of discretion.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keith D. Abney v. State of Indiana

3. “to speak and participate in extra-judicial activities 'concerning the law, the legal system, the administration of justice, and nonlegal subjects,'”

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