Barker v. Cole’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Abernathy v. Superior Hardwoods, Inc. (1983), Shields, Arnett L. v. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation (1987)
6 federal appellate · 23 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 145 Ind. App. 159 - Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Otis · Thomas v. State · Barnes v. State · Stevens v. State · American Transport Co. v. Central Indiana 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to provide Cole with funds needed to support himself and his family during the pendency of the appeal and to limit the liability of the signing tort-feasor, the agreement was entered into. Under the agreement Cole received a loan, without interest, of $25,000. He agreed to not execute judgment or seek further payment from the signing tort-feasors and to pursue Barker for the full amount of the judgment. To the extent that recovery from Barker exceeded $25,000, Cole agreed to repay the loan. If Cole was unable to recover more than $25,000 or if the appeal was successful and he chose not to retry the case, no repayment of the loan was required. The agreement stated that the parties understood the law of Loan Agreements and expressed the intention that this agreement come within the purview of that law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"Indiana recognizes that a proper element of damage is the impairment of earning capacity which means the impairment of ability to engage in one's vocation as distinguished from loss of earnings.... The gist of the concept is the adverse effect on vocation. The basic measure of damages for impairment of lost earning capacity is the difference between the amount which the plaintiff was capable of earning before the injury and the amount which he is capable of earning thereafter." ©”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Crenshaw v. McMinds“"Under elementary principles of tort law, a plaintiff is entitled to only one recovery for a wrong. Payments made in partial satisfaction of a claim must be credited against the remaining liability to prevent a double recovery."”
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.