Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 Ind. App. 296 - Boyd v. Hodson

117 Ind. App. 296 - Boyd v. Hodson’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
December 1984
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 1984

14 state decisions

6019471950196019701980decided

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 Pearce v. Dill · Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. Mason · Heap v. Parrish · Helwig v. Beckner · Duckwall v. Davis

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. “"By their motion for a directed verdict the appellees admitted the truth of all competent evidence tending to prove the appellant's case together with all reasonable inferences to which such evidence gives rise. Jackson, Rec. v. Mauck (1920), 189 Ind. 262 , 126 N.E. 851 ; Massachusetts Bonding, etc., Co. v. Free (1919), 71 Ind. App. 275 , 124 N.E. 716 ; Ackerman v. Pere Marquette R. Co. (1915), 58 Ind. App. 212 , 108 N.E. 144 . It is also well established that a court should not give a pre-emptory (sic) instruction unless there is a total failure of evidence and reasonable inference upon at least one essential element of the plaintiff's case. Massachusetts Bonding, etc., Co. v. Free, supra ."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The Supreme Court has said that in an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove that (1) the defendant instituted the prosecution or caused it to be instituted; (2) he acted maliciously in so doing; (3) there was no probable cause for instituting it; and (4) the prosecution was terminated in the plaintiff’s favor.””
    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.