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 2 courts 1913–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Quinn v. Peoples Trust & Savings Co.green2 sentences2005Co., 223 Ind. 317, 328 , 60 N.E.2d 281, 285 (1945), (quoting Restatement of the Law of Trusts § 399). *1047 The Animal Welfare Providers assert that in light of the Humane Society's financial problems over the past few years and its current negative cash flow, "it is reasonable to fear that the Humane Society will . . . end up insolvent, which will mean that fulfilling the Trust's intended purposes will become impossible." (Br. of Appellants at 24.) If that happens, they assert, they would have a right to ask the probate court to appoint one or more of the Animal Welfare Providers as trustee a 2005Co., 223 Ind. 317, 328 , 60 N.E.2d 281, 285 (1945), (quoting Restatement of the Law of Trusts § 399). *1047 The Animal Welfare Providers assert that in light of the Humane Society's financial problems over the past few years and its current negative cash flow, "it is reasonable to fear that the Humane Society will . . . end up insolvent, which will mean that fulfilling the Trust's intended purposes will become impossible." (Br. of Appellants at 24.) If that happens, they assert, they would have a right to ask the probate court to appoint one or more of the Animal Welfare Providers as trustee a | 1 | 1 |
Reasoner v. Hermangreen2 sentences1945Reasoner v. Herman (1921), 191 Ind. 642, 653, 654 , 134 N. E. 276 ; Richards v. Wilson, supra; Burke, Exr. v. Crawfordsville Tr. 1945Reasoner v. Herman (1921), 191 Ind. 642, 653, 654 , 134 N. E. 276 ; Richards v. Wilson, supra; Burke, Exr. v. Crawfordsville Tr. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Alco Gravure, Inc. v. Knapp Foundation
green
2 sentences2005The Animal Welfare Providers' Interests as Potential Beneficiaries Finally, the Animal Welfare Providers assert there is a "modern trend" to confer standing on persons who represent a class of actual or prospective trust beneficiaries. ( Id. at 26.) They rely on two decisions: Alco Gravure, Inc., v. The Knapp Foundation, 64 N.Y.2d 458 , 490 N.Y.S.2d 116 , 479 N.E.2d 752 (1985) amendment denied 67 N.Y.2d 717 , 499 N.Y.S.2d 942 , 490 N.E.2d 861 (1986), and Hooker v. Edes Home, 579 A.2d 608, 612 (D.C.Ct.App.1990). 2005The Animal Welfare Providers' Interests as Potential Beneficiaries Finally, the Animal Welfare Providers assert there is a "modern trend" to confer standing on persons who represent a class of actual or prospective trust beneficiaries. ( Id. at 26.) They rely on two decisions: Alco Gravure, Inc., v. The Knapp Foundation, 64 N.Y.2d 458 , 490 N.Y.S.2d 116 , 479 N.E.2d 752 (1985) amendment denied 67 N.Y.2d 717 , 499 N.Y.S.2d 942 , 490 N.E.2d 861 (1986), and Hooker v. Edes Home, 579 A.2d 608, 612 (D.C.Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hooker v. Edes Home
green
1 sentence2005The Animal Welfare Providers' Interests as Potential Beneficiaries Finally, the Animal Welfare Providers assert there is a "modern trend" to confer standing on persons who represent a class of actual or prospective trust beneficiaries. ( Id. at 26.) They rely on two decisions: Alco Gravure, Inc., v. The Knapp Foundation, 64 N.Y.2d 458 , 490 N.Y.S.2d 116 , 479 N.E.2d 752 (1985) amendment denied 67 N.Y.2d 717 , 499 N.Y.S.2d 942 , 490 N.E.2d 861 (1986), and Hooker v. Edes Home, 579 A.2d 608, 612 (D.C.Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
New York State Club Ass'n v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2005The Animal Welfare Providers' Interests as Potential Beneficiaries Finally, the Animal Welfare Providers assert there is a "modern trend" to confer standing on persons who represent a class of actual or prospective trust beneficiaries. ( Id. at 26.) They rely on two decisions: Alco Gravure, Inc., v. The Knapp Foundation, 64 N.Y.2d 458 , 490 N.Y.S.2d 116 , 479 N.E.2d 752 (1985) amendment denied 67 N.Y.2d 717 , 499 N.Y.S.2d 942 , 490 N.E.2d 861 (1986), and Hooker v. Edes Home, 579 A.2d 608, 612 (D.C.Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hansen v. City of Gloversville
neutral
2 sentences2005The Animal Welfare Providers' Interests as Potential Beneficiaries Finally, the Animal Welfare Providers assert there is a "modern trend" to confer standing on persons who represent a class of actual or prospective trust beneficiaries. ( Id. at 26.) They rely on two decisions: Alco Gravure, Inc., v. The Knapp Foundation, 64 N.Y.2d 458 , 490 N.Y.S.2d 116 , 479 N.E.2d 752 (1985) amendment denied 67 N.Y.2d 717 , 499 N.Y.S.2d 942 , 490 N.E.2d 861 (1986), and Hooker v. Edes Home, 579 A.2d 608, 612 (D.C.Ct.App.1990). 2005The Animal Welfare Providers' Interests as Potential Beneficiaries Finally, the Animal Welfare Providers assert there is a "modern trend" to confer standing on persons who represent a class of actual or prospective trust beneficiaries. ( Id. at 26.) They rely on two decisions: Alco Gravure, Inc., v. The Knapp Foundation, 64 N.Y.2d 458 , 490 N.Y.S.2d 116 , 479 N.E.2d 752 (1985) amendment denied 67 N.Y.2d 717 , 499 N.Y.S.2d 942 , 490 N.E.2d 861 (1986), and Hooker v. Edes Home, 579 A.2d 608, 612 (D.C.Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Moorman v. Cox
neutral
2 sentences1980In Moorman v. Cox, (1966) 247 Ind. 647 , 220 N.E.2d 525 , the board of directors of an orphanage brought an action against the Attorney General of Indiana to have a charitable trust modified under the cy pres doctrine. 1980In Moorman v. Cox, (1966) 247 Ind. 647 , 220 N.E.2d 525 , the board of directors of an orphanage brought an action against the Attorney General of Indiana to have a charitable trust modified under the cy pres doctrine. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Duncan v. Higgins
green
1 sentence1956The cases of Duncan v. Higgins, supra; Snow and Clifford v. Bowdoin College, supra; First Universalist Soc., Bath v. Swett, et al., supra; Murphy, et al. v. McBride, et al., which support appellants’ contentions, involve situations where the gifts were outright to charitable institutions which ceased to exist prior to the death of the testator so that actually the gift failed, unless it could be sustained under the cy pres doctrine. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Snow v. President of Bowdoin College
green
1 sentence1956The cases of Duncan v. Higgins, supra; Snow and Clifford v. Bowdoin College, supra; First Universalist Soc., Bath v. Swett, et al., supra; Murphy, et al. v. McBride, et al., which support appellants’ contentions, involve situations where the gifts were outright to charitable institutions which ceased to exist prior to the death of the testator so that actually the gift failed, unless it could be sustained under the cy pres doctrine. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Grand Prairie Seminary v. Morgan
neutral
2 sentences1913Grimes’ Exrs. v. Harmon, supra. As is said, however, in 2 Perry, Trusts (6th ed.) §722: ‘ ‘ If a donor makes a gift in trust for a particular charitable purpose, as to establish a particular * * * hospital * * * and * * * the trustee appointed by him is incapable of taking the gift, and of acting in that behalf; * * * courts of equity, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, can establish the charity; for it is their invariable practice not to allow a legal and valid trust to fail for want of a trustee.” See, also, Erskine v. Whitehead, supra; Grand Prairie Seminary v. Morgan (1898), 1 1913Grimes’ Exrs. v. Harmon, supra. As is said, however, in 2 Perry, Trusts (6th ed.) §722: ‘ ‘ If a donor makes a gift in trust for a particular charitable purpose, as to establish a particular * * * hospital * * * and * * * the trustee appointed by him is incapable of taking the gift, and of acting in that behalf; * * * courts of equity, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, can establish the charity; for it is their invariable practice not to allow a legal and valid trust to fail for want of a trustee.” See, also, Erskine v. Whitehead, supra; Grand Prairie Seminary v. Morgan (1898), 1 | 1 | 1913–1913 |
Erskine v. Whitehead
green
1 sentence1913Grimes’ Exrs. v. Harmon, supra. As is said, however, in 2 Perry, Trusts (6th ed.) §722: ‘ ‘ If a donor makes a gift in trust for a particular charitable purpose, as to establish a particular * * * hospital * * * and * * * the trustee appointed by him is incapable of taking the gift, and of acting in that behalf; * * * courts of equity, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, can establish the charity; for it is their invariable practice not to allow a legal and valid trust to fail for want of a trustee.” See, also, Erskine v. Whitehead, supra; Grand Prairie Seminary v. Morgan (1898), 1 | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.