Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 Ind. App. 507 - Oliver v. Coffman

112 Ind. App. 507 - Oliver v. Coffman’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
October 1973
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently October 1973 · most notably 128 Ind. App. 475 - Siebeking v. Ford, Admx., Etc. (1958), Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Revlett (1946)

25 state decisions

1001942195019601970decided

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 Lindley v. Sink · New Castle Bridge Co. v. Doty · 111 Ind. App. 179 - Inter State Motor Freight System v. Henry · Wagner v. Law · Haskell & Barker Car Co. v. Trzop

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

  1. ““The line of demarcation between ‘ultimate facts’ or ‘conclusions of fact,’ and ‘conclusions of law,’ is quite often shadowy and indistinct, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to formulate a definition that will distinguish a conclusion of law from a conclusion of fact or from an ultimate fact. Some times an allegation which ordinarily would be considered an allegation of fact will be regarded as a legal conclusion when based upon other allegations. An example is an allegation of the ownership of specific property. While considered an ultimate fact, if standing alone, it will be considered a conclusion of law where the pleader sets forth a claim of title, and upon the claim so pleaded alleges ownership. Wagner v. Law (1892), 3 Wash. 500 , 28 P. 1109 , L. R. A. 784.””
    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.