Thomas v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 2018
6 federal appellate · 14 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 151 Ind. App. 528 - Leuck v. Goetz · Gaff v. Greer · Alexandria Mining & Exploring Co. v. Irish · Behme v. Behme · Washington Township Farmers' Co-Operative Fuel & Gas Light Co. v. McCormick
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a dissolution court may exercise continuing jurisdiction to reexamine a property settlement where 'the nature of which is to seek clarification of a prior order'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"We believe that it is more reasonable to allow a party aggrieved by the erroneous admission of evidence, whose timely and proper objection has been overruled, to respond to such improper evidence without sacrificing the right to appellate recourse. In this way the objecting party may nevertheless seek to salvage an acceptable result at trial, thus eliminating the need for appeal. On the other hand, if the objecting party offers evidence on the same subject matter which goes beyond merely meeting and responding to evidence which was admitted over his proper objection, such action may render harmless the trial court's error in overruling the earlier objection."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Santonelli v. State“the erroneously admitted facts. I disagree. The case before us involves an obvious and permissible attempt on the part of trial counsel to minimize the damage done by the State's opening remarks regarding Santonelli's previous conviction for child molesting. Accordingly, I conclude that the majority mischaracterizes trial counsel's cross-examination of the alleged victim as an offensive use of the erroneously admitted facts, which went beyond”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Santonelli v. State
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.