Cunningham v. Hiles’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2022
2 federal appellate · 11 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 158 Ind. App. 43 - Bob Layne Contractor, Inc. v. Buennagel · Rokvic v. State · 150 Ind. App. 640 - McCarthy v. McCarthy · Green v. McGrew · 125 Ind. App. 302 - Groves v. Burton
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““3. In his Petition for Rehearing, Hiles has suggested that this Court granted relief ‘substantially different’ than that relief requested by Homeowners in their appeal. The relief which may be granted by this Court is coextensive with that relief which a trial court may grant under Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 59(E). Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 15(M); State ex rel. Schmal v. Lake Superior Court (1975), 264 Ind. 73 , 339 N.E.2d 58 . Among the various types of relief enunciated in TR. 59(E) is the entry of final judgment when such relief is not ‘impracticable or unfair.’ Here, the parties fully litigated the question of the enforceability of the covenant at trial. No purpose would have been served by a new trial. It is well settled that the relief granted by this Court need not be identical to the relief requested by the parties. McConnell v. Thomson (1937), 213 Ind. 16 , 11 N.E.2d 183 . ‘It is the province of this Court to dispose of cases whenever possible by granting appropriate relief.’ McCarthy v. McCarthy (1971), 150 Ind.App. 640 , 276 N.E.2d 891, 897 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with them, be, and they are hereby permanently enjoined and restrained from using the structure for any purpose which violates the terms of the restrictive covenants as defined by the Indiana Court of Appeals by its decision dated March 25, 1980, which convenant is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as Exhibit “A”, all upon real estate described as follows: IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that this order shall take full force and effect instanter.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cunningham v. Hiles
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.