Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 Ind. 624 - Kelley v. Dickerson

Kelley v. Dickerson’s Empirical Analysis

1938

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
4
states following
October 1996
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently October 1996 · most notably Baltimore Ohio R. Co. v. Reyher, Admx. (1939), Spears v. State (1980)

41 state decisions

1301938194019501960197019801990decided

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 Martin v. Lilly · Evansville & Terre Haute Railway Co. v. Berndt · City of Indianapolis v. Keeley · Taggart v. Keebler · Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. Gross

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

  1. ““Appellant predicates other errors upon the ruling of the trial court in excluding additional evidence, concerning statements made by Miller in the absence of appellee, that after the collision, the car ‘turned over three times.’ The court held these statements were not admissible as a part of the res gestae. Proof of such declarations would be violative of the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence.” See also 12 West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia, Evidence. §102, p. 535, and cases cited.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The jury was told that it was their duty to determine the rights and liability of the parties as individuals, without any consideration whatsoever as to whether either one of them carried insurance. Under this situation the court, on appeal, cannot say that reversible error was committed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The law of this state does not permit the indulgence in the presumption that a person will exercise his faculties, for his own protection and safety, nor may it be presumed that he was or was not guilty of contributory negligence, nor that he failed to exercise ordinary care.””
    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.