Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Nelson v. Butchergreen2 sentences2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PL-2962 | October 21, 2020 Page 9 of 14 Nelson v. Butcher, 170 Ind. App. 101, 112 , 352 N.E.2d 106, 114 (1976), trans. denied. 2020Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PL-2962 | October 21, 2020 Page 9 of 14 Nelson v. Butcher, 170 Ind. App. 101, 112 , 352 N.E.2d 106, 114 (1976), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Hilliard v. Jacobsgreen1 sentence2014And a compulsory counterclaim is one that “arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject- matter of the opposing party’s claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction.” Hilliard v. Jacobs, 927 N.E.2d 393, 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied (quoting T.R. 13(A)). | 1 | 1 |
Walsman v. McCulloughgreen1 sentence2002See Estate of McCullough, 492 N.E.2d 1093, 1095-96 (Ind.Ct.App.1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Middelkamp v. Hanewich
green
2 sentences1994In MiddelKamp v. Hanewich (1977), 173 Ind.App. 571 , 364 N.E.2d 1024 , this court wrote: "The first test for a compulsory counterclaim is whether it '[arose] out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter of the opposing party's claim. ...' The test for compulsoriness is a logical relationship test, as stated by the United States Supreme Court in a case under the former equity rule from which federal rule 18(a) was derived: '"Transaction" is a word of flexible meaning. 1994In MiddelKamp v. Hanewich (1977), 173 Ind.App. 571 , 364 N.E.2d 1024 , this court wrote: "The first test for a compulsory counterclaim is whether it '[arose] out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject-matter of the opposing party's claim. ...' The test for compulsoriness is a logical relationship test, as stated by the United States Supreme Court in a case under the former equity rule from which federal rule 18(a) was derived: '"Transaction" is a word of flexible meaning. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Daube & Cord v. LaPorte County Farm Bureau Co-Operative Ass'n
green
1 sentence1986In Daube and Cord v. LaPorte County Farm Bureau Co-op (1983), Ind.App., 454 N.E.2d 891 , our Third District discussed the conditions under which Trial Rule 18(A) bars a subsequent claim due to failure to assert it as a compulsory counterclaim in an earlier action. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.