109 Ind. App. 163 - Lowman v. Lowman’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2010
11 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 Parkison v. Thompson · Lillie v. Trentman · Smith v. Hill · James v. Lake Erie & Western Railway Co. · Mannos v. Bishop-Babcock-Becker Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Only the trial court sees the witnesses on the stand, their demeanor in testifying, their candor, or lack of candor, in disclosing facts about which they have knowledge. Juries and trial courts, quite often, properly, give more weight to the demeanor of witnesses than to the substance of their statements in the determination of truth. An appellate court, considering only the statements, is denied the assistance of this necessary factor.” Lowman v. Lowman (1941), 109 Ind. App. 163, 174 , 33 N. E. 2d 780 . See also 30 I.L.E., Witnesses, § 172, p. 148.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Under the rules repeatedly laid down by this and the Supreme Court, it is our duty to determine whether there is evidence in the record to sustain the finding of the trial court; and where there is conflicting evidence, even in equity cases, this court will not determine the credibility of witnesses, nor will it weigh or determine the probative force of conflicting evidence to determine where the preponderance lies. It will only determine whether there is substantial evidence which fairly tends to establish all the material issues and sustain the decision.” Citing Smith v. Hill (1929), 200 Ind. 616, 620 , 165 N. E. 911, 912 ; Carpenter v. Carpenter (1940), 108 Ind. App. 221 , 27 N. E. (2d) 889.”
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.