pri-ma facie error (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

pri-ma facie error in Indiana

5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2013 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
Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Insurance Co.green
ind · 2009 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009See Dreaded, Inc., 904 N.E.2d at 1269-70 .

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
Jose Castillo-Aguilar v. State of Indiana green
indctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2013Id.

12013–2013
Lewis v. Rex Metal Craft, Inc. green
indctapp · 2005
1 sentence

2010"The pri-ma facie error rule protects this court and relieves it from the burden of controverting arguments advanced for reversal, a duty which properly remains with counsel for the appellee." Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

12010–2010
Farm Credit Services of Mid America v. Estate of Decker green
indctapp · 1993
1 sentence

1995Id.

11995–1995
Albright v. State green
indctapp · 1986
1 sentence

1994The failure to allege facts to support each element of the claim subjects the motion to a summary dismissal, Pruitt, 557 N.E.2d 684 ; Albright v. State (1986), Ind.App., 501 N.E.2d 488 , because grounds to support a finding of selective prosecution are lacking.

11994–1994
Pruitt v. State green
indctapp · 1990
1 sentence

1994The failure to allege facts to support each element of the claim subjects the motion to a summary dismissal, Pruitt, 557 N.E.2d 684 ; Albright v. State (1986), Ind.App., 501 N.E.2d 488 , because grounds to support a finding of selective prosecution are lacking.

11994–1994

Where else courts name it

IN 5 (1994–2013) MN 3 (2001–2011) PA 3 (2006–2014) TX 3 (2008–2013) DC 3 (1983–2009) LA 2 (1988–2013) ME 2 (1978–2017) AL 2 (1924–2011)

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