143 Ind. App. 606 - McDonald v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2006
12 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 Hayworth v. Bromwell · 138 Ind. App. 119 - Snow v. CANNELTON SEWER PIPE CO. · 133 Ind. App. 542 - LEE, ETC. v. Dickerson · 133 Ind. App. 553 - Presser v. Shull · 143 Ind. App. 431 - Carson v. Associated Truck Lines, Inc.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Q. Can you determine, officer from your investigation and from particular attention to the debris that you referred to, the point of impact between the vehicle and the pedestrian? “Mr. McNagny: Your honor, we’re going to object to that again, for the reason that the officer can testify as to where he found debris, that the evidence in this case is undisputed, that the defendant did not see the decedent, that she struck him and was first apprised of his presence by a thud. We think that the Court, of course, as the tryer of fact, has a perfect right to put facts together and determine whatever he chooses. On the other hand, the officer’s opinion involves a question which can be decided equally well by the Court, and his opinion under the decisions of the Courts of this state would therefore be improper.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Q. Officer, did you find anything from your investigation, including the length of the skid marks and their location indicating excessive speed on the part of Mrs. Miller? “Mr. McNagny: We’ll again object to that as invading the province of the tryer of fact. Excessive speed involves a number of questions, involving the question of due care. Excessive speed is determined by the surrounding circumstances. This again is a question for the tryer of fact, and an answer by this witness is an invasion of that province, and has been held repeatedly by the Courts of this state to be improper. The Court: Objection overruled. You may answer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It appears to us from the McDonald case that at that time it was discretionary with the court to grant a motion for trial by jury ... but the discretion ... did not extend to the withdrawal of the right to a jury onee granted because of the limitation of Rule 1-8A.”
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.