146 Ind. App. 536 - Davoust v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2007 · most notably Muehlman v. Keilman (1971), 163 Ind. App. 466 - Yeager and Sullivan, Inc. v. O'NEILL (1975)
5 federal appellate · 24 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 Owen v. Phillips · Indiana Pipe Line Co. v. Christensen · Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Lamm · Meeks v. Wood · Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. King
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““This court has heretofore said that the trial court could consider the ordinary affairs in the lives of men and women and although this court cannot and does not weigh the evidence, we are of the opinion that in deciding whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the judgment, that we, too, may consider things that happen in the ordinary affairs of life and men.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Whatever is injurious to health, or indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as essentially to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance, and the subject of an action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Muehlman v. Keilman“is whether the thing complained of produces such a condition as in the judgment of reasonable persons is naturally productive of actual physical discomfort to persons of ordinary sensibility, tastes, and habits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wernke v. Halas
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.