Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently August 2008
24 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 Board of Trustees of University of Illinois v. United States · City of Decatur v. Eady · Pennsylvania Company v. Marion Donat · Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Mappin · Mappin v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... `In considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result, unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different.' Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402, 408 , 19 N.E.2d 263 ; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205 , 115 N.E. 577 ."”
2 later decisions 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.