Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 5 INDAPP 238 - Farrar v. Eash

Farrar v. Eash’s Empirical Analysis

1892

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
June 1982
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 1982

9 state decisions

301892190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Everson v. Seller · Yater v. Mullen · Hazzard v. Duke · Romberg v. Hughes · Hanselman v. Kegel

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

  1. ““. . . Under the statute, a party bringing an action for the recovery of personal property may, if the proper affidavit is made and bond filed, have delivery of the property before trial, or he may waive such delivery in the first instance and rely upon a successful termination of the action, in which case he will secure a judgment for the subsequent delivery of the property to him. In either case, however, it is the duty of the jury to fix the value of the property and assess the damages sustained by the detention. ...” 5 Ind. App. at 240 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Over the appellant’s objections and exceptions evidence was admitted, and the jury were instructed to the effect that the measure of damages was the value of the use of the animal from the date of demand to the time of trial.” (Our italics.)”
    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.