proof claim (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

proof claim in Indiana

5 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1967–1995 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re Candy Braz, Inc.green
ilnb · 1988 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
2 sentences

1995The trial court relied on In re Candy Braz, Inc., 98 B.R. at 375, which involved a creditor who filed a proof of claim for additional taxes after the bar date.

1995The trial court relied on In re Candy Braz, Inc., 98 B.R. at 375, which involved a creditor who filed a proof of claim for additional taxes after the bar date.

11
Thornton Ex Rel. Thornton v. Pendergreen
ind · 1978 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
1 sentence

1980See also Thornton v. Pender (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 613 .

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 (3)

CaseCitedYears
In Re Vega green
okwb · 1981
1 sentence

1989The court in In re Vega (W.D.Ok.1981) 15 B.R. 174 , considered the issue of whether a debt was duly scheduled.

11989–1989
Marriage of Poret v. Martin green
ind · 1982
1 sentence

1983IC 31-1-11.5-22(d). - Such strict showing promotes the stability of the child, therefore ensuring the child's best interests will be paramount." (Footnote omitted.) The Supreme Court, in Poret v. Martin, (1982) Ind., 434 N.E.2d 885, 888 , further refined the standard of proof and factors amounting to a substantial and continuing change of circumstances: "In the case before us, the Court of Appeals predicated its holding upon Ind. Code § 81-1-11.5 -22(d) (Burns Code Ed.) which allows the trial court to modify custody provisions only upon 'a showing of changed cireumstances so substantial and co

11983–1983
Sorrentino v. Cunningham green
indctapp · 1942
2 sentences

1967Citing Yager, supra, with approval, is Sorrentino v. Cunningham (1942), 111 Ind. App. 212 , 39 N. E. 2d 473 .

1967Citing Yager, supra, with approval, is Sorrentino v. Cunningham (1942), 111 Ind. App. 212 , 39 N. E. 2d 473 .

11967–1967

Where else courts name it

TX 115 (1897–2026) NY 112 (1877–2026) CA 78 (1931–2026) NJ 76 (1934–2026) IL 52 (1894–2024) TN 41 (1955–2025) LA 37 (1937–2025) PA 33 (1883–2025) NM 30 (1943–2021) OH 28 (1926–2026) MD 27 (1882–2015) MO 24 (1887–2019) CT 23 (1932–2025) FL 22 (1908–2025) MI 15 (1915–2023) OR 14 (1942–2020) WA 14 (1936–2024) MA 13 (1878–2003) WI 13 (1891–2018) KY 13 (1881–2025) GA 12 (1978–2026) IA 11 (1912–2022) KS 11 (1922–2026) NC 11 (1897–2026) DC 10 (1990–2024) WV 9 (1940–2023) AR 9 (1892–2024) OK 8 (1940–2016) MN 8 (1917–2016) AZ 8 (1945–2025) ME 8 (1926–2008) AL 8 (1939–2012) CO 8 (1946–2015) RI 8 (1902–2011) VA 7 (1922–2023) SC 6 (1936–2009) MS 6 (1940–2009) IN 5 (1967–1995) DE 5 (1989–2025) ND 5 (1925–2013) NE 5 (1994–2021) MT 4 (1914–2000) UT 4 (1995–2023) HI 4 (1994–2018) AK 4 (1970–2022) WY 3 (1988–2002) NH 3 (1928–2006) SD 3 (1931–2023) ID 3 (1967–1974) NV 3 (1873–2000) VT 2 (1981–2014)

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