Dawson v. Wright, Mayor, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 153 Ill. 2d 6 - Cirro Wrecking Co. v. Roppolo (1992), 146 Ind. App. 620 - Monon Railroad v. Citizens of Sherwood Forest (1970)
85 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 Wainwright v. P. H. & F. M. Roots Co. · State Ex Rel. Harp v. Vanderburgh Circuit Court · Rooker v. Bruce · In Re Guardianship of the Person & Estate of Sullivan · Vail v. Page
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . Motions to modify a judgment or in arrest of judgment or to reconsider the ruling or a motion to vacate a judgment do not extend the time for perfecting appeal. Bachelder v. Parker (1947), 118 Ind. App. 66 , 74 N. E. 2d 926 ; Zimmerman v. Zumpfe (1941), 218 Ind. 476 , 33 N. E. 2d 102 ; City of Michigan City v. Williamson (1940), 217 Ind. 598 , 28 N. E. 2d 961 . The case of Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. Kearns (1920), 191 Ind. 1 , 128 N. E. 42 , on extending time for appeal, must be considered overruled.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Since there had been no trial, the motion for new trial presents nothing for review. Metsker v. Whitsell (1914) 181 Ind. 126, 138 , 103 N. E. 1078 ; 2 Gavit, Indiana Pl. & Pr.., p. 2081, Sec. 333. Motions to modify a judgment or in arrest of judgment or to reconsider the ruling or a motion to vacate a judgment do not extend the time for perfecting appeal. Bachelder v. Parker (1947) 118 Ind. App. 66 , 74 N. E. 2d, 926 ; Zimmerman v. Zumpfe (1941) 218 Ind. 476 , 33 N. E. 2d, 102 ; City of Michigan City v. Williamson (1940) 217 Ind. 598 , 28 N. E. 2d, 961 . The case of Pittsburgh, etc R. Co. v. Kearns (1920) 191 Ind. 1 , 128 N. E. 42 , on extending time for appeal must be considered overruled. “In Schneidt v. Schneidt (1919) 69 Ind. App. 666 , 122 N. E. 588 , appellant prosecuted an action to vacate a decree of divorce. A demurrer was sustained to the .complaint, and judgment rendered against appellant for refusal to plead over. Appellant then filed a motion for new trial on the ground the court erred in sustaining the demurrer. The court held filing the motion for new trial did not extend the time for perfecting an appeal, and reasoned as follows: “ ‘The cause never having been tried, of course there could be no new trial. The pretended motion for a new trial was an absolute nullity, and presented nothing to the trial court for its consideration. The time for taking an appeal cannot be extended in that manner. Rooker v. Bruce (1908) 171 Ind. 86 , 85 N.E. 351 ; Erwin School Tp.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A failure to perfect an appeal from a final judgment within ninety days, or within time properly extended under Rule 2-2, fails to give this court jurisdiction of the appeal and it should be dismissed. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Stanley (1952), 231 Ind. 338, 341 , 108 N.E.2d 624 ; Stocker v. City of Hammond (1938), 214 Ind. 628 , 16 N.E.2d 874 ; Brady v. Garrison (1912), 178 Ind. 459, 460 , 99 N.E. 738 ; Vail v. Page (1911), 175 Ind. 126, 131 , 93 N.E. 705 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cantwell v. Cantwell
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.