Hunt test in Indiana

2024See Lockerbie Glove Co. Town Home Owner’s Ass’n, 194 N.E.3d at 1183; Save the Valley, 820 N.E.2d at 680-81 . “[A]llowing an association to represent its members’ interests promotes judicial economy and efficiency.” Save the Valley, 820 N.E.2d at 680 .

2024See Lockerbie Glove Co. Town Home Owner’s Ass’n, 194 N.E.3d at 1183; Save the Valley, 820 N.E.2d at 680-81 . “[A]llowing an association to represent its members’ interests promotes judicial economy and efficiency.” Save the Valley, 820 N.E.2d at 680 .

2024Builders Assoc. v. Cnty. of Cook, 204 N.E.3d 189 , 195-97 (Ill. 2022) (applying unmodified Hunt test in determining associational standing). [27] Indiana courts have been slower to embrace the associational standing doctrine.

2024Under the Hunt test, which is used extensively in the federal court system, an organization has standing to raise the claims of its members when: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Id.

2024Under the Hunt test, which is used extensively in the federal court system, an organization has standing to raise the claims of its members when: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Id.

2024The organization’s membership purported to include “pregnant, Medicaid eligible women who, as a matter of religious practice and in accordance with their conscientious beliefs, would choose but are precluded or discouraged from obtaining abortions reimbursed by Medicaid because of the Hyde Amendment.” Id. at 321 . [37] The Harris Court ruled that the organization lacked associational standing under the Hunt test because the organization’s claim required the participation of its individual members.

2024The organization’s membership purported to include “pregnant, Medicaid eligible women who, as a matter of religious practice and in accordance with their conscientious beliefs, would choose but are precluded or discouraged from obtaining abortions reimbursed by Medicaid because of the Hyde Amendment.” Id. at 321 . [37] The Harris Court ruled that the organization lacked associational standing under the Hunt test because the organization’s claim required the participation of its individual members.

2024Sec., 828 N.E.2d 1104 , 1112 (Ill. 2005) (identifying 24 states that have adopted associational standing with some version of the Hunt test).

2024Sec., 828 N.E.2d 1104 , 1112 (Ill. 2005) (identifying 24 states that have adopted associational standing with some version of the Hunt test).

2019Austin, 997 N.E.2d at 1040–41 (quoting Clark, 659 N.E.2d at 551–52) (other citations and quotations omitted) (emphases added). [16] With regard to the first continuance so that the trial in Cooper could take place, we first observe that, contrary to Hunt’s claim on appeal, the defendant in Cooper clearly did file a motion for a speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B) on January 13, 2017, which pre-dates Hunt’s own speedy trial motion by several months.

2019Austin, 997 N.E.2d at 1040–41 (quoting Clark, 659 N.E.2d at 551–52) (other citations and quotations omitted) (emphases added). [16] With regard to the first continuance so that the trial in Cooper could take place, we first observe that, contrary to Hunt’s claim on appeal, the defendant in Cooper clearly did file a motion for a speedy trial pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B) on January 13, 2017, which pre-dates Hunt’s own speedy trial motion by several months.

1990However, a reasonable doubt as to the existence of an essential element may arise from any of the evidence introduced including not just evidence directly related to the essential element but also evidence of subsidiary matters. [R. 77] Hunt argues, based upon White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 209 , 125 N.E.2d 705 , that the substance of the tendered instruction was not covered by any other instructions and was critical to balance the court's instruction number four in which the jury was cautioned against merely speculative doubts.

1990However, a reasonable doubt as to the existence of an essential element may arise from any of the evidence introduced including not just evidence directly related to the essential element but also evidence of subsidiary matters. [R. 77] Hunt argues, based upon White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 209 , 125 N.E.2d 705 , that the substance of the tendered instruction was not covered by any other instructions and was critical to balance the court's instruction number four in which the jury was cautioned against merely speculative doubts.

1988The Washington Court of Appeals extended its Hunt analysis in State v. Jones (1988), 50 Wash.App. 709 , 750 P.2d 281 .

1988The Washington Court of Appeals extended its Hunt analysis in State v. Jones (1988), 50 Wash.App. 709 , 750 P.2d 281 .