122 Ind. App. 597 - Phares v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably Elder v. Fisher (1966), 147 Ind. App. 46 - Cornette v. Searjeant Metal Products, Inc. (1970)
3 federal appellate · 46 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 Swanson v. Slagal, Administratrix · State v. Robbins · Boston v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. · Heiny, Admx. v. Pennsylvania R. Co. · 110 Ind. App. 1 - Lincoln National Bank & Trust Co. v. Parker
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question in this case having been presented upon sustaining a motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of plaintiff’s evidence, it was not within the province of the trial court to weigh the evidence, as is true upon motion for a new trial. Heiny, Admx. v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (1943), 221 Ind. 367 , 47 N. E. 2d 145 . Rather, it was the duty of the court under this motion to consider only the evidence favorable to the party against whom the motion was directed and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom. Hummel v. New York Cent. R. Co. (1946), 117 Ind. App. 22 , 66 N. E. 2d 901 ; Fox v. Jackson (1946), 116 Ind. App. 390 , 64 N. E. 2d 799 ; State ex rel. Bowers v. Moser (1944), 222 Ind. 354 , 53 N. E. 2d 893 ; Lincoln Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Parker (1941), 110 Ind. App. 1 , 34 N. E. 2d 190, 37 , N. E. 2d 5.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“' . . The fundamental test under the doctrine, as determined by the decisions of this State, is the test of foreseeability.” We agree with the appellee that, under our decisions the fundamental test is the^ test of foreseeability. In the case of Swanson v. Slagal, Administratrix (1937), 212 Ind. 394, 413 , 8 N. E. 2d 993 , the Supreme Court, after analyzing many of the Indiana cases, has this to say:”
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.