88 Ind. App. 450 - Boyer v. Meeks’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1995
8 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 Hoffman v. Henderson · Lowry v. McGee · Cunningham v. Jacobs · Steele v. Harkness · State ex rel. Mason v. Miller
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * An attachment is not an original action. It is a proceeding auxiliary, or incidental, to the main action, and is intended to secure the payment of any judgment that may be recovered therein. Hoffman v. Henderson (1896), 145 Ind. 613, 622 , 44 N. E. 629 ; Cunningham v. Jacobs (1889), 120 Ind. 306 , 22 N. E. 335; Lowry v. McGee (1881), 75 Ind. 508 ; State, ex rel., v. Miller (1878), 63 Ind. 475 . Under § 981, ‘The plaintiff, at the time of filing his complaint, or at any time afterward, may have an attachment against the property of the defendant.’ This means that the attachment may be had at the time of filing the complaint or at any time thereafter before judgment in the action to - which it is auxiliary. No attachment can issue after judgment in the main action.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Whinery v. Kozacik
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.