Prunk v. Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2007 · most notably Board of Commissioners v. Kokomo City Plan Commission (1976), 158 Ind. App. 177 - Saloom v. Holder (1973)
3 federal appellate · 33 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 Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. · State Ex Rel. White v. Hilgemann, Judge · Levy v. State · Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Board of Commissioners · Public Service Commission v. City of La Porte
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““However, it does not appear from the special findings and conclusions of law thereon, that the constitutional questions now sought to be raised were ever properly presented to the trial court. The remonstrances, which were dismissed, did not specify any provision, either by section, article, or by identifiable reference, of either the federal constitution or the Constitution of Indiana, that was violated. Nor did the pleading whereby the appeal was taken assert the violation of any constitutional right. When a provision of a constitution is asserted to be violated it should be pointed out with such certainty that the trial court and this court have no difficulty in determining what part of the constitution is violated by it. In Re Petition of Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. (1897), 147 Ind. 697 , 47 N. E. 151 ; Edenharter, Supt. v. Conner (1916), 185 Ind. 643 , 114 N. E. 212 ; Simmons v. Simmons (1917), 186 Ind. 575 , 116 N. E. 49 ; Overshiner v. State (1901), 156 Ind. 187 , 59 N. E. 468 ; Levy v. State (1903), 161 Ind. 251 , 68 N. E. 172 ; Manley v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 529 ,149 N. E. 51; Luttrell v. State (1932), 204 Ind. 116 , 183 N. E. 318 ; 12 C.J.785, §216. Even if it be conceded that the allegations of the remonstrance were sufficiently definite to raise a constitutional issue, yet the remonstrance was dismissed on motion of the appellants so that there was nothing of record before the trial court presenting any constitutional issue. Nor do the special findings and conclu”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[sjtrietly speaking, there is no such thing as an appeal from an administrative agency. It is correct to say that the orders of an administrative body are subject to judicial review; and that they must be so to meet the requirements of due process. Such review is necessary to the end that there may be an adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction that the agency has acted within the scope of it powers; that substantial evidence supports the factual conclusions; and that its determination comports with the law applicable to the facts found.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"`"The power of the courts to confine administrative boards and commissions within their constitutional jurisdiction, and to enjoin unreasonable administrative or legislative orders or regulations, is not derived from the statute, but exists through and under the Constitution."'" Prunk v. Indpls. Redevelopment Comm., supra (1950), 228 Ind. 579, 585 , 93 N.E.2d 171 .”
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.