Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 Ind. App. 450 - Piepho v. Gesse

106 Ind. App. 450 - Piepho v. Gesse’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
April 1975
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently April 1975

6 state decisions

3019391940195019601970decided

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 City of Decatur v. Eady · Bosseker v. Cramer · 96 Ind. App. 145 - Marion County Construction Co. v. Kimberlin · Dorsey v. State · Murray 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Where the court fails to give instructions relevant and proper for consideration by the jury under issues submitted for trial, such omission on the part of the court must be called to its attention before the jury retires to consider of its verdict, so that the court may supply the omission, and then, if there be a failure to instruct as to the omitted element, an exception should be reserved. The failure in the instant case to request of the court that it instruct the jury on assumption of risk operates as a waiver of any objection of such omission to do so. It is too late to make the objection for the first time on appeal. See Dorsey v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 531, 536 , 100 N.E. 369 ; Marks v. Jacobs (1881), 76 Ind. 216, 218 ; Murray v. State (1866), 26 Ind. 141, 142 .” Piepho v. Gesse (1939), 106 Ind. App. 450 , 18 N.E.2d 468 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It would hardly conduce to the fair and proper administration of justice to allow a party to take his chances for a verdict, and then, if he was unsuccessful, to claim there should be a new trial because the court had not instructed the jury, when he neither asked it nor excepted to its not having been done.””
    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.