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 1987–1991 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fleischer v. Hebrew Orthodox Congregationgreen2 sentences1989Fleischer v. Hebrew Orthodox Congregation (1987), Ind., 504 N.E.2d 320 (Hoffman, J., dissenting). 1989I further do not agree with the court of appeal's statement that "[mJore recent cases have broadened the business invitee test itself to require merely that the visitor's purpose be related to the owner or occupant's pecuniary interest or advantage." Fleischer, 504 N.E.2d at 323 (emphasis in original). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Magnusongreen1 sentence1987See State v. Magnuson (1986), Ind.App., 488 N.E.2d 743, 747 , where Judge Robertson, commenting upon Miis, stated, "In Mills, supra, it was held, in substance, that the decision to build a playground was discretionary and the installation and maintenance of the playground equipment was ministerial." 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. American Playground Device Co.green1 sentence1987See State v. Magnuson (1986), Ind.App., 488 N.E.2d 743, 747 , where Judge Robertson, commenting upon Miis, stated, "In Mills, supra, it was held, in substance, that the decision to build a playground was discretionary and the installation and maintenance of the playground equipment was ministerial." 6 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
French v. Sunburst Properties, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991The Owners cite French v. Sunburst Properties, Inc. (1988), Ind.App., 521 N.E.2d 1355 , claiming that Salter does not meet the public invitee test as interpreted by French . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hiller v. Harsh
green
2 sentences1987The dissent suggests that landlords could more easily be found liable to their tenant’s social guests, citing Hiller v. Harsh (1981), 100 Ill.App.3d 332 , 55 Ill.Dec. 635 , 426 N.E.2d 960 . 1987The court did not have reason to consider the public invitee rule discussed herein. [2] The dissent suggests that landlords could more easily be found liable to their tenant's social guests, citing Hiller v. Harsh (1981), 100 Ill. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
JC Penney Co., Inc. v. Wesolek
neutral
2 sentences1987Penney Co., Inc. v. Wesolek (1984), Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 1149, 1153 , (modified on other grounds) 465 N.E.2d 763 , we have never been asked to consider the public invitee test. 1987Penney Co., Inc. v. Wesolek (1984), Ind. App., 461 N.E.2d 1149, 1153 , (modified on other grounds) 465 N.E.2d 763 , we have never been asked to consider the public invitee test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
JC Penney Co., Inc. v. Wesolek
green
2 sentences1987Penney Co., Inc. v. Wesolek (1984), Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 1149, 1153 , (modified on other grounds) 465 N.E.2d 763 , we have never been asked to consider the public invitee test. 1987Penney Co., Inc. v. Wesolek (1984), Ind. App., 461 N.E.2d 1149, 1153 , (modified on other grounds) 465 N.E.2d 763 , we have never been asked to consider the public invitee test. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.