Borton v. Lavenduskey’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2019
8 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 145 Ind. App. 542 - Doe v. Barnett · 139 Ind. App. 118 - STALLINGS v. Dick · 113 Ind. App. 65 - Pierce v. Clemens · Kahf v. Charleston South Apartments · Power v. Brodie
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“By definition ... the very essence of incurred risk is the conscious, deliberate and intentional embarkation upon the course of conduct with knowledge of the circumstances. It requires much more than the general awareness of a potential for mishap. Incurred risk contemplates acceptance of a specific risk of which the plaintiff has actual knowledge.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The doctrine of incurred risk is based upon the proposition one incurs all ordinary and usual risks of an act upon which he voluntarily enters, so long as those risks are known and understood by him, or could be readily discernible by a reasonable and prudent man under like or similar circumstances. Stallings v. Dick (1965), 139 Ind.App. 118 , 210 N.E.2d 82, 88 . In Stallings, supra, the court quoted Pierce v. Clemens (1943), 113 Ind.App. 65 , 46 N.E.2d 836 for the proposition. ""Where the evidence on the question of assumed or incurred risk presents an issue of fact, that issue is for the jury, but where there is no real dispute in the evidence bearing on that question, it is for the court to say as a matter of low that the plaintiff assumed or incurred that risk." (Emphasis in original).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“When reviewing the grant of a motion for summary judgment we stand in the shoes of the trial court. Lafary v. Lo- fary (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 155, 158 . We must liberally construe all evidence in favor of the nonmovant and resolve any doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue against the proponent of the motion. Kahf v. Charleston South Apartments (1984), Ind. App., 461 N.E.2d 723, 729 . Summary judgment may not be used as a substitute for trial to resolve factual disputes. Even if the trial court believes the nonmoving party will not be successful at trial, where material facts conflict or conflicting inferences are possible from undisputed facts, summary judgment should not be entered. Grimm v. Borkholder (1983), Ind.App., 454 N.E.2d 84, 86 .”
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.