146 Ind. App. 404 - Beaman v. Hedrick’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably Huff v. Travelers Indemnity Co. (1977), Noblesville Casting Division of TRW, Inc. v. Prince (1982)
71 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 McCague v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad · 139 Ind. App. 663 - Haney v. Meyer · 135 Ind. App. 235 - Burke v. Burke · 141 Ind. App. 669 - Hunnicutt v. Boughner · Winkler v. Winkler
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. An act of intercourse coupled with the probability of conception at that time will support a determination of paternity. An act of intercourse plus the possibility of conception, however, as a matter of law, cannot serve to support such determination.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he testimony of a trained physician who has examined and treated a patient concerning matters purely within the medical realm cannot be controverted by lay opinion or by judicial speculation or inference.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““BY THE COURT: All right, now one last question. Considering this particular baby, its weight was seven pounds, its length was nineteen and a half inches, its appearance, which you apparently examined very carefully, considering its condition when it was delivered, in your general opinion, could it have been possible for this baby to have been a baby of a 212 (sic) day pregnancy? BY THE WITNESS: Two, twelve? BY THE COURT: Right. Conceived November 16th, (sic) born June 16th. BY THE WITNESS: Well, it would be unusual. I’ll put it that way, if it were. BY THE COURT: Would it be impossible? BY THE WITNESS: It would not be impossible. BY THE COURT: That is all the questions I have. Do you gentlemen have any further question?””
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.