Davidson v. Perron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A general principle of Indiana law is that when an action is pending before one Indiana court, other Indiana courts must defer to that court's authority over the case. . . . The determination of whether two actions being tried in different state courts constitute the same action depends on whether the outcome of one action will affect the adjudication of the other. The rule applies and an action should be dismissed where the parties, subject matter, and remedies are precisely or even substantially the same in both suits. Thus, when faced with a challenge to the trial court's dismissal on the basis of T.R. 12(B)(8), the critical question before us is "whether the parties, subject matter, and remedies are either precisely or substantially the same."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kentner v. Indiana Public Employers' Plan, Inc. · DOE CORP. v. Honore

2. “whether the parties, subject matter, and remedies are either precisely or substantially the same.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kentner v. Indiana Public Employers' Plan, Inc. · Vannatta v. Chandler

3. “To establish defamation, the plaintiff must prove the following elements: (1) a communication with defamatory imputation, (2) malice, (3) publication, and (4) damages.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brett Carney v. Fernando Patino, Jr. · Tikidanke Bah v. Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC d/b/a Circle K and David Ruffin