State v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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

1. “The State’s assessment that Carter’s case did not merit a larger settlement offer does not constitute bad faith, and Carter offers no authority for the argument that taking a firm stance during mediation justifies sanction. Furthermore, Carter offers no explanation as to why her refusal to settle on the State’s terms is less culpable than the State’s refusal to settle on her terms. Accordingly, the trial court’s order imposing sanctions was an abuse of discretion.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lake County Trust Co. v. Advisory Plan Commission · Johnston v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

2. “As a matter of public policy, the State is not hable for punitive damages for two reasons. First, the State does not have a mind that can be deterred by an award of punitive damages. State v. Denny (1980), 273 Ind. 556 , 406 N.E.2d 240 . Secondly, it is the citizen taxpayers who would bear the burden of this punitive award if assessed against the State. [State v. Hicks, 465 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind.Ct.App.1984).] We recognize that the case before us does not involve an award of attorney fees under the bad faith exception, but the reasoning and public policy precluding punitive damages are relevant to our analysis.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lake County Trust Co. v. Advisory Plan Commission

3. “4. "Settlement of the whole case is not the only goal of mediation; 'agreement' is another goal, whether it be a factual stipulation, an agreement to forego jury trial in favor of binding arbitration, an identification of issues, a reduction of misunderstandings, a clarification of priorities, or a location of points of agreement. Thus, even where the odds of resolution are slim, mediation can be beneficial because other goals might be achieved." State v. Carter, 658 N.E.2d 618, 623 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). 5”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stoehr v. Yost