Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 895 N.E.2d 1245 - Staley v. State

Staley v. State’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2014

14 state decisions

7020082010decided

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 Drane v. State · Perez v. State · Boesch v. State · State v. Rans · Fields 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “the endangerment clause does not require that the State prove a person other that the defendant was actually in the path of the defendant’s vehicle or in the same area in order to obtain a conviction. [State v.] Krohn, 521 N.E.2d [374,] 377 [ (Ind.Ct.App.1988) ]. An officer does not have to wait until the defendant crosses the centerline and adds another victim to the statistics of those who have died in drunk driving accidents. Id. Thus, it is sufficient that the defendant’s condition renders driving unsafe. Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “(1) aleohol; (2) a controlled substance; (8) any drug (as defined in IC 9-183-2-49.1) other than alcohol or a controlled substance; or (4) any combination of aleohol, controlled substances, or drugs; so that there is an impaired condition of thought and action and the loss of normal control of an individual's faculties to such an extent as to endanger any person.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The fundamental error doctrine is extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.