179 Ind. App. 227 - State v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently August 2011 · most notably Abernathy v. Superior Hardwoods, Inc. (1983), Maroon v. State, Department of Mental Health (1980)
5 federal appellate · 65 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Campbell v. State · Weaver v. American Oil Company · State v. Rankin · 55 Ill. 2d 356 - Reese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad · Pellett v. Sonotone Corp.
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[WJhen a loan receipt agreement is executed between a plaintiff and a defendant, and that defendant, or one of his agents or representatives, appears at trial and testifies for the plaintiff, the loan receipt agreement should be admissible to impeach his testimony. That such a witness would have a pecuniary bias is obvious, for if he testifies persuasively in plaintiff’s favor, he will be more likely to recover his loan to the plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"One's negligence may furnish a mere condition for the incidence of another's negligence and allow the original actor to escape liability. Schroer v. Funk & Sons, Inc., (1968) 142 Ind.App. 223 , 233 N.E.2d 680 ; Slinkard v. Babb (1953) 125 Ind.App. 76 , 112 N.E.2d 876 . If true, such negligence was not the active or efficient cause of the resulting injury. However, the ultimate test of legal proximate causation is the reasonable foreseeability. The assertion of an intervening, superseding cause fails to alter this test. City of Indianapolis v. Falvey, (1973) [ 156 Ind.App. 366 ], 296 N.E.2d 896 . For this Court to affirm a positive finding of proximate causation, we need only conclude that the evidence presented supports a reasonable conclusion that the original wrong was one of the proximate rather than remote causes." (Emphasis in original.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Edgman“In order to justify a reversal on grounds of excessive damages, the amount of damages assessed must appear to be so outrageous as to impress the court as being motivated by passion, prejudice and partiality. [Citations omitted.] Reversal is not justified, however, if the amount of damages awarded is within the scope of the evidence before the court. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Otis, [ 145 Ind.App. 159 , 250 N.E.2d 378 ] supra; First Bank & Trust Co. of South Bend v. Tellson (1954), 124 Ind.App. 478 , 118 N.E.2d 496 .”
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.