Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 218 Ind. 263 - Haas v. Holder, Trustee

Haas v. Holder, Trustee’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
4
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Frazier v. State (1975), 180 Ind. App. 299 - South Bend Federation of Teachers v. National Education Ass'n-South Bend (1979)

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

14019411950196019701980199020002010decided

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 State Indiana Anderson v. Brand · Ryason v. Dunten · Watson v. Burnett · State Ex Rel. Calamari v. Orleans Parish School Board · Lost Creek School Twp., Vigo County v. York

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

  1. ““ ‘There is no absolute rule as to what constitutes laches or staleness of demand, and no one decision constitutes a precedent in the strict sense for another. Each case is to be determined according to its own particular circumstances. In other words, the question of laches is addressed to the discretion of the chancellor, and his decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is so clearly wrong as to amount to an abuse of discretion.’ 21 C.J. 217; Ryason v. Dunten (1905), 164 Ind. 85, 96 , 73 N. E. 74, 77 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * gy the great weight of authority, the rule seems to be that a tenure act does not preclude the employing agency from reducing the teacher’s compensation below what is was before the breach occurred, so long as the salary to be paid equals or exceeds the minimum fixed by law and the teacher’s classification for the purpose is not arbitrary nor unreasonable. This is necessary in order that administrative officers may be free to exercise the sound discretion with which they are charged; so that the fiscal affairs of the school corporations may be adjusted in accordance with the ability of taxpayers to bear the burdens of the educational system; and to the end that the tenure law may not itself be utiized to defeat the broad public policy of the commonwealth. * * *” (Our emphasis.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““ ‘Relatrix knew that, if she unreasonably delayed and gave the appearance of acquiescing in the action of the School Board, it would have to replace her with another teacher, for the public schools must remain open. This important public function cannot be made to depend upon the whim of a teacher in choosing the time she will legally assert her rights. The board and the public, therefore, would necessarily be prejudiced and placed at a disadvantage by the relatrix’s conduct in procrastinating. Otherwise, either the class would have to await her wishes or a teacher would have to be employed in her place and, if one were employed, she would then have to be dismissed and the public funds dissipated by paying two persons for a single service”
    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.