Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 Ind. App. 329 - Rayburn v. Eisen

166 Ind. App. 329 - Rayburn v. Eisen’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
August 1991
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on State Yockey v. Superior Ct. of Marion Cty., R. 6 · State v. SUPERIOR COURT OF MARION COUNTY, ROOM NO. 3 · 150 Ind. App. 262 - Anderson v. Sell · State ex rel. Katz v. Superior Court

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

  1. “(1) In all cases where the venue of a civil action may now be changed from the judge or the county, such change shall be granted upon the filing of an unverified application or motion without specifically stating the ground therefor by a party or his attorney. Provided, however, a party shall be entitled to only one [1] change from the county and only one [1] change from the judge. (2) In any action except criminal no change of judge or change of venue from the county shall be granted except within the time herein provided. Any such application for a change of judge or change of venue shall be filed not later than ten [10] days after the issues are first closed on the merits. (6) Provided further, in the event a change is granted from the judge or county within the prescribed period, as stated above, a request for a change of judge or county may be made by a party still entitled thereto within ten [10] days after the special judge has qualified or the moving party has knowledge the cause has reached the receiving county or there has been a failure to perfect the change. Provided, however, this subdivision (6) shall operate only to enlarge the time allowed for such request under such circumstances, and it shall not operate to reduce the period prescribed in subdivisions (2), (3), (4) or (5). (9)____In the absence of such agreement, it shall be the duty of the court within two [2] days thereafter to submit to the parties a written list of all the counties adjoining the county f”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.