135 Ind. App. 85 - Kessler v. Kessler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Appellant’s memorandum reads as follows: “The decision of the Court is not sustained by sufficient evidence in the following particulars: “No where in the record is there any evidence that the furnace in question was furnished and installed at the special instance and request of the defendant Goldie Conlin Bradley nor is there any evidence that she contracted with the plaintiff for the installation or purchase of the same nor is there any evidence of any relation of said defendant to the plaintiff which would impose upon her, by law, some duty to pay for said furnace. The undisputed evidence is that the plaintiff had already commenced work of installation of the furnace before the defendant Goldie Conlin Bradley was informed of plaintiff’s action in so doing. Thus, there is no evidence of any obligation either in contract or imposed by law for said defendant to pay for said furnace. “The decision of the Court is contrary to law in that it is not sustained by sufficient evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Ind. App. 349 - Bradley v. PHELPS

2. ““The general rule of law is the children’s welfare and best interests are the paramount and controlling considerations in all disputes over the custody of a child or children. The rights of parents to such custody are not absolute and the disposition of such children is not controlled by hard and fast rules of law but by the exercise of sound judicial discretion of the court confronted with the problem. A review by an appellate tribunal of such disposition is limited solely to the question of the abuse of judicial discretion. See: Gilchrist v. Gilchrist (1947), 225 Ind. 367 , 75 N. E. 2d 417 ; Brown v. Beachler (1946), 224 Ind. 477 , 68 N. E. 2d 915 , 916 and cases cited; Duckworth v. Duckworth (1932), 203 Ind. 276, 282 , 179 N. E. 773 ; Weber v. Redding (1928), 200 Ind. 448, 455 , 163 N. E. 269 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 139 Ind. App. 645 - Blue v. Blue

3. ““ ‘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. . . . ’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Glidden v. Nasby