Abbott v. Bates’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably AutoXchange. Com, Inc. v. Dreyer and Reinbold, Inc. (2004), Loomis v. Ameritech Corp. (2002)
2 federal appellate · 33 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 In re Dunnuck · Scott v. Bodor, Inc. · Hammes v. Brumley · Rogers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. · Wisconics Engineering, Inc. v. Fisher
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“No judgment rendered on the motion shall be reversed on the ground that there is a genuine issue of material fact unless the material fact and the evidence relevant thereto shall have been specifically designated to the trial court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In order to allege fraud sufficiently,, the pleadings must state the time, the place, the substance of the false representations, the facts misrepresented, and identification of what was procured by fraud. Rogers v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1990) Ind.App., 557 N.E.2d 1045, 1055 , reh’g denied. The word “fraud” need not necessarily be alleged, if the facts alleged show either actual or constructive fraud. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Commissioner of Dep’t of Ins. (1983) Ind.App., 452 N.E.2d 441, 447 . A pleading which fails to comply with the special requirements of T.R. 9(B) does not state á claim upon which relief can be granted or a sufficient defense. Cunningham v. Associates Capital Serv. Corp. (1981) Ind.App., 421 N.E.2d 681 , 683 n. 2.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kapoor v. Dybwad“Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) does not mandate the manner in which a party is to specifically designate material. Provided that the trial court is apprised of the specific material upon which the parties rely in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, the material may be considered.... To comply with the designation requirement, a party may designate an affidavit either by providing specific page numbers and paragraph citations, or by specifically referring to the substantive assertions relied upon. However, the designation of pleadings, discovery material and affidavits in their entirety fails to meet the specificity requirement of T.R. 56.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whinery v. Roberson
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.