Chustak v. Porter County Plan Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Ballman v. Duffecy · 130 Ind. App. 203 - Wright v. Marion County Plan Commission · 132 Ind. App. 71 - Droege v. St. Joseph County Plan Commission · Metropolitan Plan Commission v. State Ex Rel. Meyer · 132 Ind. App. 208 - Clark v. Town of Griffith
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[I]t is apparent that a county plan commission has authority to make certain decisions, namely, a decision regarding the approval or disapproval of plats and to take certain other action relative thereto which would amount to a decision. As for example, a ‘decision’ of a county plan commission pertaining to the approval of plats, wherein said commission has exclusive control, is the type of situation contemplated by the provisions of the statute; and such a decision is reviewable by the certiorari procedure provided for in [section 18-7-5-57].” See also Chustak v. Porter County Plan Comm’n (1972), 152 Ind. App. 618 , 284 N.E.2d 549 .”
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.