Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 Ind. App. 596 - Abeele v. Ruse

112 Ind. App. 596 - Abeele v. Ruse’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
November 1984
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 1984

18 state decisions

8019421950196019701980decided

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 Gibson v. Ferrell · Forsyth v. American Maize Products Co. · Watkins v. Donnell · 104 Ind. App. 299 - Smith v. First Natl. Bk. of Hartford City, Exr. · Federal Deposit Insurance v. White

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

  1. ““ ‘The right to intervene in a proceeding is not absolute, but the permission of the court must be secured. The party seeking to intervene must have a clear interest in the subject matter involved, and it must appear that a full and complete determination cannot be had in the case without such party being made a party. The intervener takes the suit as he finds it; he is bound by the record of the case at the time of his intervention, and he cannot change the issues between the parties or raise new ones. Intervention, even when permissible, must be had during the pendency of an action before the issues between the original parties have been determined, and a final decree has been entered. ’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““There is no provision in our statutes for the filing of an amended or supplemental motion for new trial after the time for the filing of a motion for new trial has expired . . . , therefore such amended or supplemental motion is unauthorized and should be treated as never having been filed and no question is presented for consideration on any alleged error predicated upon the action of the court in overruling such motion.””
    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.