McKernan v. Estabrook’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is a well-settled policy of the law in this state to look with disfavor upon actions of this kind, and grant such applications with reluctance. The courts therefore require a very strict showing to be made of all the necessary facts before relief will be granted, and will indulge strong presumptions that by proper effort the party might have discovered the evidence and used it on the trial, and that his not having done so is owing either to intentional omission or to unpardonable neglect. To rebut this presumption, he must make out a case free from delinquency. His excuse must be so broad as to dissipate all surmise to the contrary. He must show that he was on the alert, but that, notwithstanding, the evidence eluded him. Hines v. Driver (1884) 100 Ind. 315 ; Davis v. Davis (1896) 145 Ind. 4 , 43 N. E. 935 ; Keisling v. Readle (1891) 1 Ind. App. 240 , 27 N. E. 583 ; The Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. McKeehan (1892) 5 Ind. App. 124 , 31 N. E. 831 ; East v. McKee (1895) 14 Ind. App. 45 , 42 N. E. 368 ; Bertram v. State ex rel. (1904) 32 Ind. App. 199 , 69 N. E. 479 ; First National Bank v. Mulford (1911) 48 Ind. App. 84 , 95 N. E. 432 ; Meldon v. Cox (1916) 60 Ind. App. 403 , 110 N. E. 1008 ; Zimmerman v. Weigel (1902) 158 Ind. 370 , 63 N. E. 566 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 84 Ind. App. 217 - Eastern, Etc., Plow Co. v. Stout, Exrx. · Hardendorf v. Gafner