Ramsey v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) it disposes of all claims as to all parties; (2) the trial court in writing expressly determines under Trial Rule 54(B) or Trial Rule 56(C) that there is no just reason for delay and in writing expressly directs the entry of judgment (i) under Trial Rule 54(B) as to fewer than all the claims or parties, or (i) under Trial Rule 56(C) as to fewer than all the issues, claims or parties; (3) it is deemed final under Trial Rule 60(C); (4) it is a ruling on either a mandatory or permissive Motion to Correct Error which was timely filed under Trial Rule 59 or Criminal Rule 16; or (5) it is otherwise deemed final by law.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. James A. McGee v. Shanna Kennedy · In Re The Paternity of C.J.A.: G.C. (Mother) v. T.A. (Father)

2. “Before a party brings a medical malpractice action in an Indiana court, the [Act] requires that the proposed complaint be presented to a medical review panel and that the panel render an opinion^ ] Ind.Code § 34-18-8-4 (2008). The chairman of the medical review panel has various powers, such as establishing a reasonable schedule for the parties’ submission of evidence. Id. § 34-18 — 10—3(c). Furthermore, the [Act] states that “[t]he evidence in written form to be considered by the medical review panel shall be promptly submitted by the respective parties.” Id. § 34-18-10-17(a). When a plaintiff fails to adhere to the submission schedule, a defendant may seek recourse in a trial court while a complaint is pending before a medical review panel. In these instances, two additional provisions of the [Act] become pertinent. See Galindo v. Christensen, 569 N.E.2d 702, 704-05 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). First, a defendant may request the appropriate trial court to “preliminarily determine an ... issue of law or fact.” I.C. § 34-18-ll-l(a)(l). Second, a plaintiff “who fails to act as required by this chapter without good cause shown is subject to mandate or appropriate sanctions upon application to” the trial court, Id. § 34-18-10-14. Thus, a defendant may file a motion with the trial court for a preliminary determination on the plaintiffs failure to adhere to the submission schedule, and the defendant may request the sanction of dismissal. See Galindo, 569 N.E.2d at 705 . The court may dismis”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Estate of Carrie Etta Mills McGoffney v. Anonymous Skilled Nursing Facility · John H. Mooney, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Joseph S. Mooney v. Anonymous M.D. 4, Anonymous M.D. 5, and Anonymous Hospital

3. “The authority of the Indiana Supreme Court and Court of Appeals to exercise appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to appeals from final judgments.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. In Re The Paternity of C.J.A.: G.C. (Mother) v. T.A. (Father)