150 Ind. App. 640 - McCarthy v. McCarthy’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 1994 · most notably 152 Ind. App. 497 - Hiatt v. Yergin (1972), 159 Ind. App. 456 - Roberts v. State (1974)
31 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 STATE EX REL. HABERKORN v. DeKalb Circuit Court · 149 Ind. App. 36 - Farm Bureau Insurance Company v. Clinton · State v. Clark · 120 Ind. App. 1 - Carson v. Carson · 121 Ind. App. 74 - Hegarty v. Curtis
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... Our adoption of notice pleading under Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure contemplates that a complaint need not state a detailed cause of action alleging such specific facts as performance of all the myriad terms and conditions of a settlement agreement. The framers of the new rules went to great pains to circumscribe this practice of paper inundation and have adopted a compact and uncomplicated form of pleading which requires a plaintiff merely to make a clear and concise statement in order to put the defendant on notice that plaintiff has a justiciable claim and is entitled to relief under some legal theory. Trial Rule 8(A); Farm Bureau Insurance Co. v. Clinton (1971), 149 Ind. App. 36 , 269 N.E.2d 780, 782 . No more is required to withstand a motion to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(6)... ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Although Indiana law does not provide for installment alimony, it is nevertheless proper under full faith and credit for this court to enforce an installment alimony decree obtained in another state. If such were not the law of this state, Indiana would become a virtual sanctuary for ex-husbands attempting to avoid the effect of a foreign decree's alimony provisions. Rogers v. Rogers (1909) 46 Ind.App. 506 , 89 N.E. 901 . We hold then, in keeping with what we consider to be sound public policy, that appellee is entitled to have the installment alimony provision of the Connecticut decree enforced in Indiana under the "full faith and credit" clause of Article 4, § 1, of the U.S. Constitution.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sanson v. Sanson““It is well settled that one cannot attack the constitutionality of a statute unless his rights are adversely affected. (Citing authorities).” McCarthy v. McCarthy (1971) 150 Ind. App. 640 , 276 N.E.2d 891, at 894 .”
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.