145 Ind. App. 628 - Phillips v. Stern’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Assuming as true, for purposes of testing the complaint for want of facts stated, the above alleged facts, we feel, as did the trial court, that as a matter of law, appellants are not entitled to a trial upon the allegations of their complaint. The complaint herein reveals that the Lake Central School Corporation purports to assume corporate existence pursuant to adoption, by the voters, of a partial plan on November 8, 1966. Appellants filed this suit to contest the creation of said corporation on December 8, 1966. It is quite pertinent that those remedies provided by Burns’ § 28-6118, could be used in such a manner as to enforce compliance with the procedural requirements of the School Corporation Reorganization Act of 1959, namely in a suit to prevent or restrain a violation thereof. Appellants here seek to set aside the ultimate result because of alleged defects in the means used to obtain that result. We therefore feel, that it is likewise pertinent to assess appellants’ position herein in light of the fact that a majority of the voters expressing a concern (by means of the ballot), voted in favor of adopting the partial plan and that appellants, apparently in the minority, seek to overturn the will of the majority by virtue of certain defects allegedly occurring in the creation and formation of the Lake Central School Corporation. Alleged defects numbered 1, 2 and 3 above pertain to the election process and serve to raise the Circuit Court’s failure to comply with the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bronnenberg v. Craig

2. ““Appellants filed this action below on the thirtieth day following the election. The question then arises as to whether it was the intent of the General Assembly to provide the remedies of declaratory judgment and injunction for contesting, the creation and formation of a community school corporation, if such remedies are timely pursued (on or before the thirtieth day following the election). Although the statute does not so expressly provide, we feel that such was the intent of the General Assembly.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Ind. App. 81 - Mays v. Parker

3. ““The complaint herein contains no allegation of fraud nor even language intimating same. As the action was instituted below, after the election and not in an attempt to compel compliance with the provisions of the statute and as the defects alleged are asserted in retrospect, the same are not grounds for declaring a lack of legal existence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 Ind. App. 81 - Mays v. Parker