Gartner v. Temple’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

84 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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “An abuse of discretion 'is a fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary and unreasonable.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blue v. Blue · In Re Heupel Family Revocable Trust Dated Mar. 23, 1999

2. “appears to have relied upon inaccurate information which was provided to him by the Defendants, was guided by Dave throughout the visit he made to the property, and appears to have* been coached heavily by the Defendants to recommend a partition plan which merely parroted the Defendants’ desires.” 3 . It is important to note, however, that although the Browns repeatedly claim on appeal that they were greatly prejudiced by the circuit court's decision, they do not argue that a partition in kind cannot be made without great prejudice to them. Instead, the Browns merely argue that the Modified Maas Plan causes great prejudice to them. In their appellate brief, the Browns contend that "the manner that the trial court allocated the land greatly prejudices the Defendants,” and therefore “the case should be reversed allowing them to continue their farming operation and allocating the real property in a manner to allow the family farm to be maintained and partitioned in an equitable fashion for all of the parties not just some of the parties.” We have said that "a party has access to the remedy of partition by sale only in limited circumstances — when ‘it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the property, or any part of it, is so situated that partition cannot be made without great prejudice to the owners.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kaberna v. Brown

3. “The question is not whether this Court would have made the same findings that the trial court did, but whether on the-entire evidence we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has’been committed. This Court is not free to disturb the lower court’s findings unless it is satisfied-that they are- contrary to a clear preponderance of the evidence. Doubts about whether the evi-, dence supports the court’s finding of fact are to be resolved in favor of the successful party’s version of the evidence and of all inferences fairly • deducible therefrom which are favorable to the court’s action.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State, Department of Game, Fish & Parks v. Troy Township