Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 586 N.E.2d 914 - Quebe v. Davis

Quebe v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
October 2013
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2013

14 state decisions

120199220002010decided

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 Picadilly, Inc. v. Colvin · Sigsbee v. Swathwood · 166 Ind. App. 181 - Gonderman v. State Exchange Bank, Roann · Zimmerman v. Moore · McCae Management Corp. v. Merchants National Bank & Trust Co.

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

  1. “Disputes over interpreting a contract are resolved by finding the intent of the parties within the ‘four corners’ of the document. McCae Management Corp. v. Merchants Nat’l Bank & Trust Co. Of Indianapolis, 553 N.E.2d 884, 887 (Ind.App.1990), trans. denied. Where the intent of a lessor and lessee are discernible in a lease, the courts will give effect to their intent. Edward Rose of Indiana v. Fountain, 431 N.E.2d 543, 546 (Ind.App.1982). If the language used creates ambiguity, construction of the contract is a question of law. McCae, supra. The Court must construe a lease to harmonize its provisions. See id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “so outrageous as to impress [this] court as being motivated by passion, prejudice, and impartiality.”
    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.