153 Ind. App. 197 - State v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2018
11 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 Campbell v. State · 141 Ind. App. 662 - Brinkman v. City of Indianapolis · Perkins v. State · Flowers v. Bd. of Comrs. of Vanderburgh County · 143 Ind. App. 178 - Klepinger v. Bd. of Comm. Co. of Miami
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Finding no basis for the continuation of the doctrine of sovereign immunity as applicable to the state any more than it is applicable to municipal corporations and counties, we hold that such a defense by the state is not available to any greater extent than it is now available to municipal corporations and counties of this state."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Daley · State v. Daley“"As a result of Campbell, supra, the State of Indiana is no longer immune from liability for damages caused by its negligence in situations such as the case at bar."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Daley · State v. Daley““We find no other constitutional provision with reference to suits against the State of Indiana. There is no plain, unequivocal statement in the Constitution that the State of Indiana shall be immune against suits imposing a liability for damages; only an inference might be drawn from the above section. As we read this section it occurs to us that the framers of the Constitution assumed that at common law the State was immune from suit and authorized the legislature to modify such liability to the extent it may see fit, providing that no private acts or special acts were passed for the benefit of some individual. We are dealing here not with a constitutional prohibition, but rather with a principal of common law which has its roots in the ancient common law of England which held ‘The King can do no wrong’ and hence could not be sued in any court of law. . . . ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Krueger v. Bailey
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.