Endres v. Indiana State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. 2004). · Go Syfert
Search
Endres v. Indiana State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320 (Ind. 2004). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 5× by 4 distinct cases, 2008–2025→ Stable · …at a minimum, a party must show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal. at p. 322 ✓
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2020–2025→ Stable · …a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits at p. 322 ✓
48 citation events (48 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Termination: K W v. Indiana Department of Child Services (indctapp, 2025-11-21)
Treatment trajectory · 2005 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2005 2015 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Termination: K W v. Indiana Department of Child Services (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
at a minimum, a party must show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.
cited Cited as authority (rule) CHINS: A R v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Commitment of P P
Ind. Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Termination: J R v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004) (noting policy reasons behind this requirement, including “preservation of judicial resources, opportunity for full development of the record, utilization of trial court fact-finding expertise, and assurance of a claim being tested by the adversary process”); see also In re C.C., 170 N.E.3d 669 , 676 (Ind. Ct .App. 2021) (finding mother waived insufficient notice argument when she failed to appear at the termination fact- finding hearing and her attorney “failed to argue lack of statutory notice in the trial court”). [35] Wai…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.L. (Minor Child) and J.M. (Mother) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.W. (Minor Child) and A.H. (Mother) and D.W. (Father) v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
They assert that DCS’s failure to provide them with services while they were incarcerated “deprived [them] of [their] substantive due process right to raise [Child] and also deprived [them] of [their] procedural due process right to fair proceedings.” 4 Brief of Appellant Mother at 14; Brief of Appellant Father at 12. [19] As a preliminary matter, we note that in order to properly preserve an issue for appeal, a party must, at a minimum, “show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.” Endres v. Ind.…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.B. (Minor Child) and T.S. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of T.B. (Child) and S.M. (Father) S.M. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
“At a minimum, a party must show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-1242 | April 9, 2020 Page 8 of 12 merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.” Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Golden Gate National Senior Care, LLC d/b/a Golden Living v. Indiana Family and Social Services Administration (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.” Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004). [15] At the September 7, 2016 telephonic hearing, the OMPP called as its witness Adam Langford, CPA (“Langford”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Antonio T. Sims v. Ron Neal (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’” Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004)). [10] Indiana Code § 34-25.5-1-1 provides that “[e]very person whose liberty is restrained, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-MI-2032 | January 28, 2020 Page 8 of 10…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of S.D. (Child) and L v. (Father) L v. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
“At a minimum, a party must show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.” Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of D.A. Jr. (Minor Child) S.G. (Mother), and D.J.A. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1610-JT-2501 | April 7, 2017 Page 14 of 16 N.E.2d 526 , 533 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of D.C., C.C., and I.S., Children in Need of Services, S.P., Mother, and J.C., Father v. Ind. Dept. of Child Services, and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’” Cavens, 849 N.E.2d at 533 (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Marriage of Frederick Soskel v. Jo Betty Ingram (mem .dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’” Id. (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of the Involuntary Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of C.F. and A.F. (Minor Children), and C.H. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Endres v. Indiana State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of: L.E. III, B.E. & A.E. (Minor Children), Children in Need of Services and E.E. (Mother) & L.E. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Our Supreme Court has explained that, “[a]t a minimum, a party must show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.” Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re: The Adoption of: M.W.M and K.R.M. (Minor Children) M.M. v. W.S. (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
M.M. does not dispute this and instead claims that the one-year time limitation in Trial Rule 60(B) does not apply to his allegation of fraud on the court pursuant to Stonger. [12] “In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’” Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blake Layman v. State of Indiana Levi Sparks v. State of Indiana (2×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Endres v. Indiana State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004) (declining to address claim of state constitutional right to religious freedom where the record and arguments were not sufficiently developed for this Court to decide important issue of Indiana constitutional law).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of Minor Children Alleged to be in Need of Services, T.G., A.G., and D.G., Minor Children L.E., Mother v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’” Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) League of Women Voters of Indiana, Inc. v. Rokita (2×)
Ind. · 2010 · confidence medium
In addition, while the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes parties "from raising issues in state court that have been finally determined as to the same parties in previous federal actions," Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 321 (Ind.2004), we do not have the same parties in the present litigation as in the federal litigation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hardley v. State (2×)
Ind. · 2009 · confidence medium
Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind.2006); Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pavese v. Cleaning Solutions
Ind. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Although Cleaning Solutions cites to Endres v. Indiana State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind.2004), and other cases for the proposition that appellate courts should decline to address constitutional issues where the record is not developed in the lower court, these cases are distinguishable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hoose v. Doody (2×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
Our supreme court has stated that “[a]t a minimum, a party must show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.” Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind.2004).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Involuntary Termination of Parentchild Relationship of B.R. v. Miami County Department of Child Services (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Ind. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’ ” Id. (quoting Endres v. Indiana State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind.2004)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cavens v. Zaberdac (2×)
Ind. · 2006 · confidence medium
In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, "show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal." Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind.2004).
discussed Cited "see" In the Matter of R.G., (Minor Child, Child in Need of Services, and T.C. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services and Child Advocates, Inc. (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind. 2006) (“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’”) (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004)).
discussed Cited "see" In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship, C.S., Minor Child, A.S., Mother v. Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind. 2006) (“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’”) (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004)). [16] Mother argues that, in concluding that the conditions that led to the Child’s removal would not be remedied, the court improperly relied on the fact that “no one knew exactly when [Mother] would be released from the Marshall County Jail . …
discussed Cited "see" In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Z.B. and I.B. (Children) and A.B. (Mother) A.B. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind. 2006) (“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-JT-581 | September 10, 2019 Page 11 of 18 upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’”) (quoting Endres v. Indiana State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004)). [18] Waiver notwithstanding we conclude any error in the admission of Exhibit 14 was harmless.
discussed Cited "see" In the Matter of T.D., A Child Alleged To Be In Need Of Services, W.D., Father v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (mem. dec.)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526, 533 (Ind. 2006) (“In order to properly preserve an issue on appeal, a party must, at a minimum, ‘show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.’” (quoting Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004))). [14] Father challenges the portion of Finding 14 that asserts Dr. Hibbard had sufficient information to form her opinion and argues that she could not have had sufficient information because she failed to speak with either Mother or Father.
discussed Cited "see" Victor Fointno v. Clair Barnes
Ind. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 321 (Ind. 2004) (concluding that a constitutional claim was waived where there were no materials submitted to indicate any argument before the trial court until a motion to correct error). 3 and an additional 10 days for the Defendants to submit any surrebuttal.
discussed Cited "see" Charles Neal v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004) (citing the advantages of preserving judicial resources, fully developing the record, using the trial court‟s fact finding expertise, and assuring that a claim is tested by the adversary process).
discussed Cited "see" Edward Chandler v. State of Indiana
Ind. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004) (citing the advantages of preserving judicial resources, fully developing the record, using the trial court’s fact finding expertise, and assuring that a claim is tested by the adversary process).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Linda F. Slavick Trust v. Christmas Lake Properties Association Inc.
Ind. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind. 2004) (discussing principles of issue preservation).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc.
Ind. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 321-22 (Ind.2004) (declining to address claim of state constitutional right to religious freedom where party offered no legal argument in support until he filed his motion to correct error in the trial court); Chidester v. City of Hobart, 631 N.E.2d 908, 912-13 (Ind.1994) (holding that a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute must be raised with the trial court in order to preserve appellate review of the issue).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Timothy W. Plank, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Debra L. Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., and State of Indiana
Ind. · 2013 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 321-22 (Ind. 2004) (declining to address claim of state constitutional right to religious freedom where party offered no legal argument in support until he filed his motion to correct error in the trial court); Chidester v. City of Hobart, 631 N.E.2d 908, 912-13 (Ind. 1994) (holding that a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute must be raised with the trial court in order to preserve appellate review of the issue).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." McClure v. Cooper (2×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Ankney v. State, 825 N.E.2d 965 , 970 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied; see also Endres v. Ind. State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind.2004) (“At a minimum, a party must show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
ENDRES, Ben, Appellant,
v.
INDIANA STATE POLICE, Appellee
50S05-0406-CV-245.
Indiana Supreme Court.
Jun 2, 2004.
809 N.E.2d 320
2004 Ind. LEXIS 507
2004 WL 1231640
David C. Kolbe, Warsaw, IN, Attorneys for Appellant., Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, David L. Steiner, Deputy Attorney General of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Shepard, Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, Rucker.
Cited by 42 opinions  |  Published

ON PETITION TO TRANSFER

PER CURIAM.

Indiana State Trooper Ben Endres ("Endres") refused to accept an assignment as a gaming agent at a riverboat casino, asserting that the assignment would conflict with his religious convie-tions. The Indiana State Police ("State Police") then terminated his employment, and the Indiana State Police Board ("Police Board") upheld the termination.

Endres filed a civil action in federal district court against the State Police, asserting, among other things, that his termination violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. This case reached the United States Cireuit Court for the Seventh Circuit, which determined, among other things, that Endres failed to state a claim under Title VII. See Endres v. Indiana State Police, 384 F.3d 618 (7th Cir.2003), reh'g denied with opinion, 349 F.3d 922 (7th Cir.2003), cert. denied.

Meanwhile, Endres also sought judicial review of the Police Board's decision in the Marshall Superior Court, which upheld Endres's termination. Endres appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. See Endres v. Indiana State Police, 794 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). In doing so, the Court of Appeals first concluded that the disposition of his federal action precluded Endres from relitigating his Title VII claim in this state court action. See id. at 1093-94. The Court of Appeals also concluded that his employment termination did not violate his State constitutional right to religions freedom. See id. at 1094-97. Endres has petitioned this Court to grant transfer of jurisdiction from the Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court. Ind. Appellate Rule 57. We now grant transfer and assume jurisdiction over this appeal. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A).

With regard to the Title VII claim, we agree with the Court of Appeals that parties are collaterally estopped from raising issues in state court that have been finally determined as to the same parties in previous federal actions. See Endres, 794 N.E.2d at 1094, citing City of Anderson v. Davis, 743 N.E.2d 359, 865-66 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, and Men-denhall v. City of Indianapolis 717 N.E.2d 1218, 1225 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. demied. We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals on this issue.

With regard to his State constitutional claim, we note, as did the Court of Appeals, that the appendix submitted by Endres is incomplete and that there is nothing in the materials submitted by either party to indicate that Endres offered any legal argument in support of his State constitutional claim until he filed his motion to correct error in the trial court. See Endres, 794 N.E.2d at 1091 n. 1 and 1094. The Court of Appeals took the position[*322] that, as a matter of "notice pleading," En-dreg's assertion in his initial complaint that his discharge constituted "a violation of the United States Constitution and Indiana Constitution each guaranteeing religious freedom and the free exercise thereof" was sufficient for Endres to preserve the constitutional issue for review on appeal.

We find that the mere listing of a contention in a party's complaint, with no further attempt to press the contention in the trial court, is insufficient effort to preserve the matter for appellate review. At a minimum, a party must show that it gave the trial court a bona fide opportunity to pass upon the merits of the claim before seeking an opinion on appeal. The policy reasons behind this requirement-preservation of judicial resources, opportunity for full development of the record, utilization of trial court fact-finding expertise, and assurance of a claim being tested by the adversary process-apply with particular foree where, as here, the claim is a constitutional one. See generally Chidester v. City of Hobart, 631 N.E.2d 908, 913 (Ind.1994) (mere "mention" rather than "debate" of constitutional issues insufficient to preserve the issues for appellate review, quoting Stile v. Indianapolis, 55 Ind. 515, 524 (1877). We therefore decline to address this issue because the record and arguments have not been sufficiently developed for us to decide this important issue of Indiana constitutional law. See Troxel v. Troxel, 737 N.E.2d 745, 752 (Ind. 2000).

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.