144 Ind. App. 286 - Wright v. Kinnard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The above causes were submitted for trial without the intervention of a jury, evidence was heard upon the issues raised upon Plaintiffs’ Verified Petition for Judicial Review as amended and the filing of transcript by the Defendant State Commission for the Reorganization of School Corporations, and the matter as to the issues raised under Plaintiffs’ Petition for Judicial Review, the same being Cause No. 19849, was taken under advisement, and the portion of the consolidated Cause No. 19350, was continued under the rulings heretofore made in such consolidated causes: “And the Court being duly advised now finds the order, decision, and determination of the State Commission for the Reorganization of School Corporations was contrary to any statutory authority given to the State Commission under Section 28-6115(3) in that the final comprehensive plan as is required by the provisions of said aforementioned statute within ninety (90) days after notification of previous non-approval; and that said State Commission- did not make an informal findings of fact nor were the alleged changes in the ‘Revised’ Final Plan of August 11, 1965., of sufficient probative value to be a basis in law to refute a contention that the new approval was an arbitrary and capricious abuse of discretion-, and that by reason of the fact that upon the record shown by the transcript of the proceedings by the County Committee that the State Commission was without jurisdiction to approve such final comprehensive ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Ind. App. 484 - Wright v. Kinnard

2. ““At the outset, we observe that a motion to dismiss is not normally proper procedural method of testing the sufficiency of a complaint, nor for considering whether or not the plaintiff has stated a good cause of action. A demurrer is the method by which such legal questions are raised. A motion to dismiss should not be perverted for that purpose. The sustaining of a demurrer gives the plaintiff an opportunity to amend, while the sustaining of a motion to dismiss cuts off such rights which the statute would normally give a plaintiff. State ex rel. Terminix Co. of Ind. v. Fulton Circuit Court (1956), 235 Ind. 218 , 132 N. E. 2d 707 ; Michener et al. v. Sprinfield Engine & Thresher Co. et al. (1895), 142 Ind. 130 , 40 N. E. 679 , 31 L. R. A. 59; Kaplan v. State ex rel. Meyer’s Plumbing, Inc. (1960), 241 Ind. 147 , 164 N. E. 2d 645 ; Yelton v. Plantz (1948), 226 Ind. 155 , 77 N. E. 2d 895 ; State ex rel. Hurd v. Davis (1949), 227 Ind. 93 , 84 N. E. 2d 181 . “It is stated in all the cases above that a court may not enter an order of involuntary non-suit or dismissal against a plaintiff except where there be a statutory ground or a total lack of jurisdiction.” (Our emphasis)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 145 Ind. App. 31 - Buskirk v. Board of Zoning Appeals

3. ““When any county committee has prepared its preliminary written plans for reorganization of school corporations, it shall fix dates and places for one (1) or more hearings thereon and give notice thereof to all the residents of the school corporations affected and all interested parties. The county committee shall have the discretion as to whether to hold more than one (1) hearing. Such notice shall be given by the chairman of the county committee by publication at least once in one (1) newspaper of general circulation published in the school corporation or corporations, and if no newspaper is published in the school corporation or corporations, then in a newspaper having a general circulation within the school corporation or corporations, at least ten (10) days but not more than thirty (30) days prior to the date set for such hearing.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Ind. App. 484 - Wright v. Kinnard