holder claim (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

holder claim in Indiana

5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1877–2012 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Allen v. Stategreen
indctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
1 sentence

2012Allen v. State, 865 N.E.2d 686, 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). 3 to prevail on a claim that the placement of his sentence is inappropriate[,] because the question under Appellate Rule 7(B) is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate. ” Id. at 267-68 (emphasis in original).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (10)

CaseCitedYears
Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. neutral
indctapp · 1934
2 sentences

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

21941–1941
Roberts v. Spencer neutral
ind · 1887
2 sentences

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

21941–1941
Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Co. v. Smith neutral
ind · 1891
2 sentences

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81, 84 , 13 N. E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites’ Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472, 473 , 26 N. E. 77 , 26 N. E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N. E. 317 ; McCullough v .

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

21941–1941
Schrichte v. Stites' Estate neutral
ind · 1891
2 sentences

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

21941–1941
McCullough v. Kaufman, Administrator neutral
indctapp · 1935
2 sentences

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

1941Roberts v. Spencer, Executor (1887), 112 Ind. 81 , 84, 13 N.E. 127 ; Schrichte v. Stites' Estate (1891), 127 Ind. 472 , 473, *Page 221 26 N.E. 77 , 26 N.E. 1009 ; Ashley, Admr. v. Canida, Admx. (1934), 99 Ind. App. 313 , 192 N.E. 317 ; McCullough v. Kaufman, Admr. (1935), 100 Ind. App. 4 , 193 N.E. 924 ; Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra. In the case of Beasley's Estate v. Rauch, Rec., supra, the receiver of a national bank filed exceptions to the final report of an administrator for the purpose of enforcing the liability of decedent's estate for an assessment levied by the controller of

11941–1941
Huston v. First National Bank neutral
ind · 1882
1 sentence

1888Huston v. First Nat’l Bank, 85 Ind. 21 ; Windell v. Hudson, 102 Ind. 521; Walker v. Heller, 104 Ind. 327 ; Culver v. Yundt, 112 Ind. 401 .

11888–1888
Windell v. Hudson green
ind · 1885
1 sentence

1888Huston v. First Nat’l Bank, 85 Ind. 21 ; Windell v. Hudson, 102 Ind. 521; Walker v. Heller, 104 Ind. 327 ; Culver v. Yundt, 112 Ind. 401 .

11888–1888
Walker v. Heller neutral
ind · 1885
1 sentence

1888Huston v. First Nat’l Bank, 85 Ind. 21 ; Windell v. Hudson, 102 Ind. 521; Walker v. Heller, 104 Ind. 327 ; Culver v. Yundt, 112 Ind. 401 .

11888–1888
Culver v. Yundt neutral
ind · 1887
1 sentence

1888Huston v. First Nat’l Bank, 85 Ind. 21 ; Windell v. Hudson, 102 Ind. 521; Walker v. Heller, 104 Ind. 327 ; Culver v. Yundt, 112 Ind. 401 .

11888–1888
Braxton v. State ex rel. Albert neutral
ind · 1865
1 sentence

1877But neither that case nor the case of Braxton v. The State, 25 Ind. 82 , decides that the holder of the claim may not file it, under said section 62, against the estate of a deceased joint debtor.

11877–1877

Where else courts name it

CA 157 (1906–2025) IL 41 (1919–2024) TX 37 (1878–2025) NJ 30 (1895–2021) ID 26 (1909–2020) CO 22 (1963–2026) PA 17 (1924–2025) LA 16 (1845–2025) OH 15 (1907–2024) AL 13 (1876–2014) MA 13 (1900–2020) NY 12 (1862–2016) NM 12 (1999–2018) FL 12 (1994–2024) KS 11 (1878–2020) AZ 11 (1968–2023) CT 10 (1992–2022) WA 7 (1915–2019) OR 7 (1961–2021) MD 7 (1904–2026) SD 7 (1927–2016) NC 6 (1905–2022) GA 6 (1915–2019) MS 6 (1877–2017) IN 5 (1877–2012) DE 5 (2016–2022) NV 4 (2015–2022) MO 4 (1904–1992) ME 4 (2010–2020) NE 4 (1934–2018) MT 4 (1940–2020) IA 4 (1930–2010) MN 4 (1919–2006) MI 4 (1989–2015) VA 3 (1987–2022) UT 3 (1914–2011) KY 3 (1952–2003) WI 3 (1995–2014) AK 3 (2012–2023) NH 3 (2006–2011) HI 2 (2003–2005) OK 2 (1917–1940) VT 2 (2005–2005) SC 2 (1900–1975)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check