Conard v. Waugh’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Thiele v. Faygo Beverage, Inc. (1986), Konkle v. Henson (1996)
34 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 Posey v. Skyline Corp. · Guy v. SCHULDT · Sanchez v. Loffland Bros. · Criss v. Bitzegaio · Wallace v. Indiana Insurance
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[In a summary judgment proceeding, when the moving party asserts-as did Dr. Conard in the case before us-the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations and presumptively establishes that defense by placing before the trial court Trial Rule 56(C) materials showing there is no question that the action against him was initiated beyond the limited statutory period, then the burden of establishing the existence of material facts in avoidance of the statute of limitations defense shifts to the opponent of the summary judgment motion. [Footnote omitted.] Whitehouse v. Quinn (1982), Ind.App., 443 N.E.2d 332 , [vacated on other grounds]; see Criss v. Bitzegaio (1981), Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1221 ."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“the opposing party may not rest on his pleadings, but must set forth specific facts, using supporting materials contemplated by Trial Rule 56, which demonstrate that summary judgment is not appropriate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"Whenever the claim or defense asserted in the amended pleading arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth or attempted to be set forth in the original pleading, the amendment relates back to the date of the original pleading. An amendment changing the party against whom a claim is asserted relates back if the foregoing provision is satisfied and, within the period provided by law for commencing the action against him, the party to be brought in by amendment: (1) has received such notice of the institution of the action that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; and (2) knew or should have known that but for a mistake concerning the identity of the proper party, the action would have been brought against him."”
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.