125 Ind. App. 176 - Koeneman v. Aldridge’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently September 1983 · most notably 125 Ind. App. 565 - Stull v. DAVIDSON (1955), 128 Ind. App. 475 - Siebeking v. Ford, Admx., Etc. (1958)
53 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 New York Central Railroad v. Milhiser · Riechmann v. Reasner · Bryant v. State · Cousins v. Glassburn · Daniels v. McGinnis
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well settled that applications for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence are looked upon with disfavor. Not only must diligence preceding the trial be shown but the evidence must be of such a character as to raise a reasonable presumption that a different result will be reached if it is introduced in the new trial. Granting such a motion is within the sound discretion of the trial court whose ruling will not be disturbed except for abuse of discretion.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“. . The defense of another action pending applies generally and only when the plaintiff in both suits is the same person and not to a case where the plaintiff in one files a counterclaim.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“If there is no evidence on an issue to support an instruction either direct or by inference, it is not applicable, and should not be given.”
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.