Moryl v. Ransone’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
16 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 7502
Relies on Foremost Life Insurance v. Department of Insurance · Kroger Co. v. Plonski · Wright v. Gettinger · 141 Ind. App. 452 - Bielat v. FOLTA · State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Lake Superior Court
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The rule that parties will be held to trial court theories by the appellate tribunal does not mean that no new position may be taken, or that new arguments may not be adduced; all that it means is that substantive questions independent in character and not within the issues or not presented to the trial court shall not be first made upon appeal. Questions within-the issues and before the trial court are before the appellate court, and new arguments and authorities may with strict propriety be brought forward.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]he crucial factor ... in determining whether [the plaintiff] may interject what appears to be a new issue into the appeal is whether [the defendant] had unequivocal notice of the existence of the issue and, therefore, had an opportunity to defend against it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“should attempt to give effect to both [statutes] and must attempt to harmonize any inconsistencies or conflicts....”
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.