130 Ind. App. 409 - Hull v. Hull’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. ““In considering the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of the court, a fragment, part or portion of the evidence is not plucked from the whole and appraised alone, but all the evidence, together with all the permissible and reasonable inferences deductible therefrom, is surveyed to determine the ultimate facts and circumstances established thereby favorable to the decision of the trial court. A reversal of a judgment predicated upon a finding results only when there exists no competent evidence to support such finding. “The trial court has before it, within its sight and hearing, the physical presence of the parties and oftimes their children. It hears their testimony, notes their actions and reactions, observes their sincerity, emotions, inflections and tones of voice, apparent state of health, and experiences the tenseness of the human drama enacted there within the confines of the court room. The appellate tribunal, on the other hand, has before it only the cold, written record. It sees only words, phrases, sentences, questions, answers, and exhibits. It is without the authority to weigh the evidence and deter mine only that the requisite principles of law have been observed and duly applied, and that justice has been fairly and impartially administered. “Cruel and inhuman treatment is a relative term and depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. Stewart v. Stewart (1911), 175 Ind. 412 , 94 N. E. 564 . It may consist of a series of wrongs, no ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. Hill · 135 Ind. App. 85 - Kessler v. Kessler

2. ““In effect, appellant invites us to weigh the evidence on the ground that the testimony of appellee is such as not to be believed and that it is without substantial probative value. We know of no set formula or factual definition as constituting cruel and inhuman treatment within the statutory meaning thereof. Each case stands or falls upon its own circumstances as shown by the evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. Hill