141 Ind. App. 59 - RUST v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 42 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rationale of these rulings seems to be that only evidence which is pertinent to the issues presented by the case is admissible. The underlying consideration is the presumption that if the jury has cognizance of the fact that the defendant will not bear the incident of the judgment, the jury wil[l] be prejudiced in favor of an excessive verdict.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wiles v. Mahan · Clouse v. Fielder

2. ““Appellants’ Instruction No. 34 which was refused provided : “ ‘I instruct you that the laws of the State of Indiana recognize the possibility of a mere accident, that is, an occurrence which is in no way due to the fault or negligence of anyone. “ ‘The happening of a mere accident, resulting in injury cannot support a verdict for damages. Therefore, if you find that the injury or damage suffered by the plaintiff, Ida May Watson, were the result of a mere accident, then there can be no recovery by the plaintiff and it will be your duty to return a verdict for the defendants,....’ “This matter was fully discussed in appellants’ Instruction No. 27 which was given and reads as follows: “ ‘You are instructed that an unavoidable accident has been defined to be an occurrence or happening as under all the attendant circumstances and conditions could not have been foreseen or prevented by using ordinary care. So, in this case, if you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the involved accident was one that could not have been foreseen or prevented by either plaintiff or defendant, in the exercise of ordinary care, then I instruct you that this was an unavoidable accident, and plaintiff cannot recover.’ “It should be noted that Instruction No. 34 tendered by the appellant and refused by the court appears t© be a standard instruction on the ‘mere accident’ theory. Similar instructions had been upheld by this court and the Supreme Court prior to the cases of Miller v. Alvey (1965)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 144 Ind. App. 276 - Qualls v. J. C. Penney Co.

3. ““In whatever manner the fact of insurance was shown or suggested, appellant was entitled to have the jury cautioned and instructed that such fact had no bearing on the merits of the case.” Also, see: Rust v. Watson (1966), 141 Ind. App. 59 , 215 N. E. 2d 42 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 Ind. App. 180 - Gilson v. CITY OF ANDERSON, ETC.