155 Ind. App. 558 - Burrus v. Silhavy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 84 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"The purpose in filing a motion in li-mine to suppress evidence or to instruct opposing counsel not to offer it is to prevent the asking of prejudicial questions and the making of prejudicial statements in the presence of the jury with respect to matters which have no proper bearing on the issues in the case or on the rights of the parties to the suit. It is the prejudicial effect of the questions asked or statements made in connection with the offer of the evidence, not the prejudicial effect of the evidence itself, which the motion in limine is intended to reach...."”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Proper v. Mowry · 168 Ind. App. 214 - Enyart v. Blacketor

2. ““ ‘Motions in limine’ are a part of the Indiana practice. The trial court’s authority to entertain ‘motions in limine’ emanates from its inherent power to admit and exclude evidence. This inherent power to exclude extends to prejudicial questions and statements that could be made in the presence of a jury and thereby interfere with fair and impartial administration of justice.” Burrus v. Silhavy, (1973) 155 Ind. App. 558 , 293 N.E.2d 794, 798 . “ ‘If prejudicial matters are brought before the jury, no amount of objection or instruction can remove the harmful effect, and the plaintiff is powerless unless he wants to forego his chance of trial and ask for a mistrial. Once the question is asked, the harm is done. Under the harmless error rule many of these matters would probably not be reversible error even though they have a subtle but devastating effect on the plaintiff’s case. “ ‘Perhaps the greatest single advantage to a motion in limine is not having to object in the jury’s presence to evidence which is “logically relevant.” Jurors cannot be ex pected to understand why they should not be allowed to consider all evidence which is related to the case, and will usually resent the fact that an objection kept them from hearing it. “ ‘Another advantage in the use of these motions is to allow the trial judge an opportunity to study the question and the authorities involved. If presented in advance of trial with a brief and with the time to study it, the court will be more inclined”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Abbott · State v. Church of Nazarene of Logansport

3. ““Wherefore, plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to instruct the defendant and all its counsel not to mention, refer to, interrogate concerning, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the above mentioned facts, without first obtaining per mission of the Court oütside the presence and hearing of the jury, and further instruct the defendant and all its counsel not to make any reference to the fact that this motion has been filed and granted and to warn and caution each and every one of their witnesses to strictly follow these same instructions.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 Ind. App. 497 - Baldwin v. Inter City Contractors Service, Inc. · Robinson v. State