Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 816 NE2D 979 - Massey v. State

Massey v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

9 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Illinois v. Gates · Gray v. Lucas, Warden, Et Al. · Richardson v. State · Houser v. State · Tinnin 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Collins states in his brief on appeal that the trial court “merged” the possession of cocaine and a firearm count into the possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon count at sentencing. Our review of the CCS indicates that the trial court entered judgment of conviction for both of those verdicts related to Collins’ possession of a firearm, which is improper [for double jeopardy purposes]. As such, we remand with instructions to the trial court to vacate Collins’ conviction for possession of cocaine and a firearm.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he court shall determine whether terms of imprisonment shall be served concurrently or consecutively.... However, except for crimes of violence, the total of the consecutive terms of imprisonment ... to which the defendant is sentenced for felony convictions arising out of an episode of criminal conduct shall not exceed the advisory sentence for a felony which is one (1) class of felony higher than the most serious of the felonies for which the person has been convicted.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"Nevertheless, my assessment of Indiana case law tells me Ratliff was wrongly decided. As Judge May's lead opinion in [Massey ] notes, the crimes in Ratliff did not occur simultaneously. That fact, however, does not justify a conclusion to the effect that in order to have a single criminal episode all the crimes under analysis must have been committed simultaneously." Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.