Barnes v. Antich’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County (2002), Benton v. City of Oakland City (1999)
26 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 Ross v. Consumers Power Co. · Mullin v. Municipal City of South Bend · Stevenson v. Hamilton Mutual Insurance Co. · Joe v. Lebow · Lake County Juvenile Court v. Swanson
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this court applies the same standard as the trial court. We must determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the law has been correctly applied by the trial court. Summary judgment is appropriate only if no genuine issues of material fact exist and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Neither the trial court, nor the reviewing court, may look beyond the evidence specifically designated to the trial court. Once the movant for summary judgment has established that no genuine issue of material fact exists by submission of materials contemplated by T.R. 56, the nonmovant may not rest on his pleadings but must set forth specific facts, using supporting materials contemplated under the rule, which show the existence of a genuine issue for trial. A trial court’s grant of summary judgment is ‘clothed with a presumption of validity,’ and the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a] governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from [t]he adoption and enforcement of or failure to adopt or enforce ... a policy[.]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whether a particular governmental act is immune is a question of law for the court to decide, although the question may require extensive factual development.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Milan Jurich, Personal Representative of the Estate of Rade Jurich, and Rajna Jurich v. Indiana Department of Transportation · Katrina Murray and Aquila F. Flynn, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jaylan T. R. Murray v. Indianapolis Public Schools and Arlington Community High School
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.