Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 433 NE2D 788 - Bender v. Peay

Bender v. Peay’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2004

2 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

80198219902000decided

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 Sisemore v. Neal · Sue Yee Lee Ex Rel. Kwei Hwang Lee v. Lafayette Home Hospital, Inc. · 114 Ind. App. 419 - Scoopmire v. Taflinger · Clouse v. Fielder · 125 Ind. App. 487 - Stainbrook v. JOHNSON CTY. F. BUR., ETC.

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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"... [A] cause of action for loss of consortium derives its viability from the validity of the claim of the injured spouse against the wrongdoer. Where, for example, the claim of the injured spouse against the alleged tort-feasor has been abrogated by statute, the right of the other spouse to recover for loss of consortium cannot exist."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “is to promote form over substance. Common sense and logic demand a holding which precludes one from pursuing a claim which is totally derivative when the claim from which it is derived has been fully [and fairly] litigated, adjudicated, and denied. Bender v. Peay, 433 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind. App. 1982) (emphasis added). [4] One commentator explains that requiring joinder is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[Rosander] is clearly distinguishable in that no adjudication of liability or non-liability had been made by a competent tribunal. Here, Mrs. Peay's injury claim was fully litigated resulting in an adverse verdict.”
    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.