Lamb v. Lamb’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 159 Ind. App. 105 - Hunter v. Milhous · Mishawaka St. Joseph. L. T. Co. v. Neu, Gdn. · Indiana & Michigan Electric Co. v. Terre Haute Industries, Inc. · 141 Ind. App. 220 - Bandy v. MYERS · Denham v. Degymas
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ajctual notice has been divided into two classes, (1) express and (2) implied, which is inferred from the fact that the person charged had means of knowledge which he did not use. Whatever fairly puts a person on inquiry is sufficient notice, where the means of knowledge are at hand; and if he omits to inquire, he is then chargeable with all the facts which, by a proper inquiry, he might have ascertained. This, in effect, means that notice of facts which would lead an ordinarily prudent man to make an examination which, if made, wohld disclose the existence of other facts is sufficient notice of such other facts.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Garza v. Lorch
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.