Mann v. Schnarr’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 62 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'The husband may be the agent for the wife in making an authorized contract, or she may by her acts ratify an unauthorized contract. Or if the wife knows the improvement is being made on the real estate and makes no objection to those furnishing the labor and materials, and does any affirmative act consistent with her consent to the improvement, she consents to the creation of the lien and her interest in the real estate is subject to the lien ....”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Means v. Everitt · Quality Foods, Inc. v. Holloway Associates Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.

2. “(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), in an action to enforce a lien under this chapter, a plaintiff or lienholder who recovers a judgment in any sum is entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees. The court shall enter the attorney’s fees as a part of the judgment. (b) A plaintiff may not recover attorney’s fees as part of the judgment against a property owner in an action in which the contract consideration for the labor, material, or machinery has been paid by the property owner or party for whom the improvement has been constructed. Roncelli maintains that under subsection 14(b) the subcontractors were not entitled to collect attorney’s fees because Goodrich paid the full contract consideration and thus fulfilled the purpose of the mechanic’s lien statute. To Roncelli, the sole remedy available to the subcontractors was to seek contractual remedies. The subcontractors counter that subsection 14(a) makes attorney’s fees mandatory in foreclosure actions because it states that “the court shall enter the attorney’s fees as part of the judgment.” Ind.Code § 32-28-3-14(a) ■ (emphasis added). Further, they contend that subsection 14(b) is inapplicable under the circumstances, because the exclusion is only applicable to the owner of property, which Roncelli’ is not. We agree with the subcontractors: under § 32-28-3-14, they are entitled to recover attorney’s fees incurred in the pursuit of their liens from Roncelli. - But the question of whether the plain language of § 32-”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goodrich Quality Theaters, Inc., and Roncelli, Inc. v. Fostcorp Heating and Cooling, Inc., Wilson Iron Works, Inc., and Johnson Carpet, Inc.

3. ““One of the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is to transfer from the worker to the industry in which he is employed and ultimately to the consuming public a greater portion of economic loss due to industrial accidents and injuries.” (authorities omitted)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Frampton v. Central Indiana Gas Company