State v. Bouras’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 22 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The parties stipulated to the amount of burial and funeral expenses at $5,280.74. No other special damages for Mrs. Gianakis were stipulated or sought. The jury was instructed properly that recovery could be awarded for intangibles, such as loss of a mother’s services, counseling, guidance, love and affection. The surviving son testified concerning his mother’s love and care. No evidence was introduced as to the worth of these services and intangible losses. However, since there was evidence of the loss and since the jury was instructed without objection that recovery could be made for the loss, the only question is whether the jury’s award was caused by passion, prejudice or partiality. We are unpersuaded that the amount of damages alone in this case are so outrageous as to be indicative of prejudice. We cannot say as a matter of law the loss of a mother is worth less than the jury’s award, and where there is credible evidence to sustain the jury’s discretion, we will not find that discretion abused.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Posey County v. Chamness

2. ““Giving instructions is entrusted to the trial court’s discretion, and its refusal to give a tendered instruction is grounds for reversal only if the substance of the instruction was required to be given and was not adequately covered by other instructions given by the court. Smith v. Insurance Company of North America, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 638 ; Piwowar v. Washington Lumber and Coal Company, (1980) Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 576 . A tendered instruction is required to be given only if it covers ah essential element of the case supported by evidence, correctly states the law material to the case and when no other instruction covers that area of the law. Dahlberg v. Ogle, (1978) 268 Ind. 30 , 373 N.E.2d 159 ; Davis v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 476 , 355 N.E.2d 836 ; School City of Gary v. Claudio, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 628 ; Burkett v. Crulo Trucking Co., (1976) 171 Ind.App. 166 , 355 N.E.2d 253 ; Jackman v. Montgomery, (1974) 162 Ind.App. 558 , 320 N.E.2d 770 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rust v. Guinn

3. “Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 51(D) allows each party to tender ten jury instructions. However, the court “in its discretion for good cause shown” may allow more.... The purpose of the limit is to promote accurate and general instructions on the applicable law and to increase jury comprehension and retention. Under the trial rule, it is in the court’s discretion to accept more than ten instructions tendered. The rule does not specifically require notice to the other side of intent to ask for addi tional instructions but only requires the court’s discretion be guided by a showing of good cause.... However, we note that had the court accepted only ten instructions, it still could have given the other instructions as the court’s own without a showing of cause.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Wait