147 Ind. App. 617 - Meier v. Combs’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““This cause came on to be heard this 14th day of May, 1970, on the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court having considered the pleadings, stipulations of fact and briefs filed by the parties and after argument of counsel, now finds that the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted, and that the plaintiff recover nothing from the defendant and that the defendant have judgment for costs, there being no genuine issue as to any material fact in this cause concerning the defendant’s affirmative defense that the plaintiff failed to file a timely complaint for damages within the applicable statute of limitations, the same being found in Burns Indiana Annotated Stat. § 2-602, and the defendant, therefore, being entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court further makes the following findings of fact: 1. The automobile collision which is the subject of the plaintiff’s complaint occurred in Cass County, Michigan, on August 21, 1966. 2. The plaintiff was not under any legal disability at the time said collision occurred and is not now under any legal disability. 3. The plaintiff filed her complaint for damages resulting from said collision in the Superior Court of St. Joseph County, Indiana, on August 19, 1969. Upon consideration of the foregoing facts, the Court now concludes as a matter of law: 1. That the Indiana Statute of Limitations, being the law of the forum, is applicable to the controversy herein. 2. The Indiana Statute of Limitations for pe”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 148 Ind. App. 203 - Horvath v. Davidson · 156 Ind. App. 458 - Meier v. Combs

2. “We would also add the suggestion that since the limitation statute on which defendant relies ... imposes a harsh rule in holding infants and incompetents to the same standard of responsibility as competent adults it should be strictly construed against defendants who invoke it. The term [“Jprofessional services[”] should be given the narrowest possible interpretation. Defendants who receive the benefits of that statute are highly favored over non-professional defendants and over defendants of other professions. In our opinion, an action should not be held to be based on the rendition of ["jprofessional services!"] (for the purpose of barring it by the statute) unless the rendition of some service which cannot legally be rendered except by, or under the supervision of, a licensed physician, dentist, or surgeon is an [integral] and essential part of the cause of action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Estate of O'Neal Ex Rel. Personal Representative Newkirk v. Bethlehem Wood Nursing & Rehabilation Center, LLC

3. “No action of any kind for damages, whether brought in contract or tort, based upon professional services rendered or which should have been rendered, shall be brought, commenced or maintained, in any of the courts of this state against physicians, dentists, surgeons, hospitals, sanitariums, or others, unless said action is filed within two [2] years from the date of the act, omission or neglect complained of.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carrow v. Streeter