143 Ind. App. 696 - Lewis v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
14 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on City of Fort Wayne v. Bishop · Ross v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division · State Ex Rel. Tittle v. Covington Community Consolidated Schools of Fountain · 140 Ind. App. 491 - SNOUFFER, ETC. v. Peoples Trust and Sav. Co. · Gibault Home for Boys v. Terre Haute First National Bank
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The general rule of law is well settled that on appeal all reasonable presumptions are indulged in favor of the rulings and judgment of the trial court. Generally speaking, if the action of the trial court is sustainable upon any theory, it must be affirmed. In support of this general rule, our Supreme Court in the case of Ross et al. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division (1962) 243 Ind. 61, 65 , 182 N.E.2d 585, 586 , stated: `As long as there is any substantial ground upon which the decision of the lower tribunal may be sustained on appeal, the judgment will not be reversed. The reviewing court may examine the entire record to sustain the lower court's action. The court does not search the record to reverse, although it may do so in order to affirm. State ex rel. Tittle v. Covington, etc., Schools (1951) 229 Ind. 208 , 96 N.E.2d 334 ; City of Ft. Wayne v. Bishop (1950) 228 Ind. 304 , 92 N.E.2d 544 ; 2 I.L.E. Appeals, § 461, pp. 332, 333; F.W. & H. Ind. Tr. and App. Pract. 1961 Pocket Supp., § 2783, p. 134.' "See also Snouffer v. Peoples Trust and Savings Co. (1965) 140 Ind. App. 491 , 212 N.E.2d 165 ." Lewis v. Burke, supra, 143 Ind. App. at 697 , 242 N.E.2d at 382 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Under this statute, as we interpret it, parties seeking to intervene have the burden of showing that they have an immediate and direct interest in the subject matter of the action. Gibault Home v. Terre Haute First Nat. Bank (1949), 227 Ind. 410, 415 , 85 N. E. 2d 824, 826 . “This is the issue which the petition to intervene seeks to present in the trial court, to have heard and determined in that court. The issues may be either legal, factual or both. * * * The petitioners seeking to intervene have a right to have the petition put at issue and to be heard thereon. This, it appears from the record, the court failed to do. “The order and judgment of the trial court denying the petition to intervene is reversed and this cause remanded with instructions to rule on the pending motions and permit the petition to be put at issue and determined.” See also: Lewis v. Burke (1968), 143 Ind. App. 696 , 242 N. E. 2d 382 .”
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.