Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 811 N.E.2d 862 - Daisy v. Roach

Daisy v. Roach’s Empirical Analysis

2004

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
December 2011
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Rhodes v. Wright · Bagley v. Insight Communications Co., LP · Merrill v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH · Hammock v. Red Gold, Inc. · Red Roof Inns, Inc. v. Purvis

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

  1. “(1) where the contract requires the performance of intrinsically dangerous work; (2) where the principal is by law or contract charged with performing the specific duty; (3) where the act will create a nuisance; (4) where the act to be performed will probably cause injury to others unless due precaution is taken; and (5) where the act to be performed is illegal.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “because the responsibilities are deemed 'so important to the community' that the principal should not be permitted to transfer those duties to another.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Pursuant to Rule 56(C) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, summary Judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. On review of a trial court's decision to grant or deny summary judgment, this Court applies the same standard as the trial court. We must determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact requiring trial, and whether 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. A party seeking summary judgment bears the burden to make a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Once the moving party satisfies this burden through evidence designated to the trial court pursuant to Trial Rule 56, the nonmoving party may not rest on its pleadings, but must designate specific facts demonstrating. the existence of a genuine issue for trial. The court must accept as' true those facts alleged by the nonmoving party, construe the evidence in favor of the non-movant, and resolve all doubts against the moving party. For a defendant in a negligence action to prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the defendant must show that the undisputed material facts negate at least one of the elements essential to the negligence claim, or that the claim is barred by ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.