161 Ind. App. 247 - State v. Frye’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Frye counters by urging that although the procedure to be followed in obtaining evidence in an administrative hearing is pathetically unclear, that TR. 37 should control in administrative actions as well as in strictly judicial actions. “We have an exception to this general rule of the non-application of the trial rules to administrative agencies in TR. 28(F), supra, as the same pertains to discovery proceedings^] . . . “Appellee is correct in his contention and is, therefore, entitled to any help he can get from Trial Rules 26 through 37 on the matter of discovery. * * * * * # “The administrative bodies of Indiana do not have contempt power. It is under TR. 28(F), supra, that the Parke Circuit Court had the power and authority to issue, in the case at bar, enforcement orders to require the Center to answer appellee’s interrogatories, as that was the county in which the discovery was being made. Although the trial court had that power, it is our opinion that its action was premature and erroneous, in that the Commission had not been requested by appellee to order Center to submit answers to appellee’s interrogatories and the same was prerequisite to appellee requesting the aid of the trial court. “It is our further opinion that the trial court could not properly pass upon the interrogatories in a case such as this until such time the Commission had ruled that the interrogatories be answered and the same had not been answered within the time ordered by the Commission. After s”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Josam Manufacturing Co. v. Ross · Riley v. Heritage Products, Inc.

2. ““Discovery proceedings before administrative'agencies. Whenever an adjudicatory hearing, including any hearing in any proceeding subject to judicial review, is held by or before an administrative agency, any party to that adjudicatory hearing shall be entitled to use the discovery provisions of. Rules 26 through 37 of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. Such discovery may include any relevant matter in the custody and control of the administrative agency. Protective and other orders shall be obtained first from the administrative agency, and if enforcement of such orders or right of discovery is necessary, it may be obtained in a court of general jurisdiction in the county where discovery is being made or sought, or where the hearing is being held.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Josam Manufacturing Co. v. Ross · Riley v. Heritage Products, Inc.

3. ““This law, it is urged, gives the agency the power to issue subpoenas, rule upon offers of proof and receive relevant oral or documentary evidence, take or cause depositions to be taken, regulate the course of the hearing and conduct of the parties, . . . (and) dispose, of procedural motions and similar matters. IC 1971, 4-22-1-7, Ind.Ann.Stat. §§ 63-3007 (Burns’ 1961 Repl.). “It is our opinion that the statutes above referred to, more specifically § 63-3007, is broad enough in its authorization of power to take or cause depositions to be taken, to include the power to cause the answering of proper interrogatories submitted by a party and, therefore, under said statutes, the State Employees’ Appeals Commission is authorized to pass upon and dispose of objections to discovery in those instances where objections are made to interrogatories properly submitted.” (Emphasis added.). 315 N.E.2d at 401 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Josam Manufacturing Co. v. Ross