155 Ind. App. 693 - Buher v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A defendant who either actively or passively consents to the setting of a case for trial without the issues being formally closed by the filing of an answer and thus treats the issues as being closed by operation of law, cannot thereafter demand any action in the case which, by rule of this court, he should have asserted prior to the closing of the issues.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. TCS BY STATE, DPW v. Ellis · Paternity of T.C.S. ex rel. State, Department of Public Welfare v. Ellis

2. ““Defendant-appellant urges that it is extremely important to note under Rule TR. 38(B) 1. . . if no responsive pleading is filed or required . . .’a person must file a demand for jury trial within ten days after the time such pleading otherwise would have been required. He further urges that no responsive pleading was required in his case and with that we agree. However, his contention that since one was filed that Rule TR. 38(B)’s alternative requirement as to demand for jury trial applied is not correct and in our opinion under the cases hereinabove referred to the defendant-appellant had the right to file a request for jury trial but has waived his right to a jury trial by not having filed his request for such within ten [10] days after the time such pleading otherwise would have been required. Rule TR. 38(B) limits the time within which a party may request a jury trial. It is not consistent with the spirit of this Rule to allow a defendant to wait five and one-half months, and file a useless answer, simply for the purpose of giving efficiency to an otherwise untimely motion for a jury trial. Thus, if a party wishes to file a responsive pleading in an action where such pleading is not required, he must, nevertheless, follow the guidelines set down in the Rules and file such pleading within the time it otherwise would have been required.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 181 Ind. App. 281 - Johnson v. Wabash County

3. “It is well recognized in paternity actions that the issues are deemed closed by operation of law. Roe v. Doe, (1972) Ind.Ct. of App. [ 154 Ind.App. 203 ], 289 N.E.2d 528 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hampton v. Douglass