124 Ind. App. 343 - Smith v. SMITH’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently June 1988 · most notably Miller, Etc. v. Ortman, Etc. (1956), 141 Ind. App. 247 - General Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Lasalle Realty Corp. (1966)
32 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 Wolverton v. Wolverton · 109 Ind. App. 350 - Radabaugh v. Radabaugh · 117 Ind. App. 335 - Adams v. Adams · 123 Ind. App. 152 - Baker v. Baker
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . This is an action for divorce, in which it is the mandatory duty of the court to adjust and determine the property rights of the parties. Sec. 8-1217, Burns’ 1946 Replacement. There is no fixed and certain rule as to the allowance of alimony. The alimony to be awarded is, within the sound discretion of the court, dependent upon the facts and circumstances in each particular case. The court’s decision will not be reviewed unless an abuse of such discretion has been shown. Adams v. Adams (1946), 117 Ind. App. 335 , 69 N. E. 2d 632 . Also, this court has heretofore stated that, in the adjustment of the property rights of the parties, the court may allot to one spouse the property previously settled upon the other. Radabaugh v. Radabaugh (1941), 109 Ind. App. 350 , 35 N. E. 2d 114 ; Baker v. Baker (1952), 123 Ind. App. 152 , 108 N. E. 2d 70 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘. . . While it is proper to include the detailed legal conclusions applicable to the facts as found, it is sufficient to set forth one conclusion “The law is with the plaintiff {or, defendant)”, and if this conclusion is included, others will be regarded as surplusage. . . .’ Flanagan, Wiltrout and Hamilton’s Indiana Trial and Appellate Practice, ch. 25, §1733, p. 356.” Smith v. Smith et al. (1953), 124 Ind. App. 343, 348 , 115 N. E. 2d 217 .”
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.