159 Ind. App. 239 - Inkoff v. Inkoff’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Inkoff's argument, however, is that the trial court had no jurisdiction to act when it did, that is, while the appeal of its judgment was pending. In State ex rel. Reger v. Superior Court, etc. (1961), 242 Ind. 241 , 177 N.E.2d 908 , our Supreme Court allowed the trial court in a divorce action to make this determination while the case was pending on appeal, indicating the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to enter such an award. That a similar award was made in the case at bar cannot, therefore, warrant reversal.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Ind. App. 409 - Linton v. Linton · Hudson v. Hudson

2. ““Because his petition was denied, this appeal is taken from a negative judgment. When the case is viewed in this light, any attack by Inkoif upon the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court can be of no avail to him. This is because an allegation of insufficient evidence by a party who had the burden of proof below and who is appealing from a negative verdict presents no issue for review. Monon Railroad, etc. v. N.Y. Central R. Co., etc. (1967), 141 Ind. App. 277 , 227 N.E.2d 450 . Clearly, appellant-Inkoff’s contentions of evidentiary insufficiency cannot be sustained. Furthermore, determinations of proper child support in divorce proceedings are committed to judicial discretion, and will not be disturbed on appeal unless an abuse of that discretion is apparent. Bill v. Bill (1972), [155] Ind. App. [65], 290 N.E.2d 749 , 34 Ind. Dec. 545 . Such abuse must be apparent upon the face of the record, and it must be clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court, or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Draime v. Draime (1961), 132 Ind. App. 99 , 173 N.E.2d 70 (transfer denied). The decision of the court and the reasons stated therefor in Draime are applicable to the child support determination of the trial court in the case at bar: “The Appellate Court, unlike the lower court, is subjected neither to the physical presence of the parties nor the emotions or motivations of the appellant and appellee. T”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 172 Ind. App. 66 - MacAuley v. Funk

3. “It is beyond question that a trial court may, in its sound discretion, award appellate attorney's fees to the wife in divorce-related action independent of any statutory provision. [citations omitted] And, such awards have been held to be merely in furtherance of a trial court's decree, and, so, properly made only by the trial court. [citations omitted] Upon examination of the case law in this area, it appears that the rule has developed that the determination of the awarding of appellate attorney's fees to the wife in a divorce-related action, and the amount of such fees, is a matter best decided by the trial court, which is familiar with the fact situation in the particular case. [citations omitted] Inkoff's argument, however, is that the trial court had no jurisdiction to act when it did, that is, while the appeal of its judgment was pending. In State ex rel. Reger v. Superior Court, etc. (1961), 242 Ind. 241 , 177 N.E.2d 908 , our Supreme Court allowed the trial court in a divorce action to make this determination while the case was pending on appeal, indicating the trial court has continuing jurisdiction to enter such an award. That a similar award was made in the case at bar cannot, therefore, warrant reversal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 166 Ind. App. 409 - Linton v. Linton