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 1982–2012 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cooper Industries, LLC v. City of South Bendgreen2 sentences2012In Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 863 N.E.2d 1253, 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. granted, opinion vacated, 878 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. 2007) and vacated, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009), this court addressed whether South Bend’s claim under the ELA was time-barred by the general six-year statute of limitations. 2012In Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 863 N.E.2d 1253, 1256 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. granted, opinion vacated, 878 N.E.2d 219 (Ind.2007) and vacated, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009), this court addressed whether South Bend’s claim under the ELA was time-barred by the general six-year statute of limitations. | 2 | 2 |
Rice v. Strunkgreen1 sentence2009(Appellant’s Br. 20-21, quoting Rice v. Strunk, 632 N.E.2d 1151, 1153 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), affd, 670 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind.1996). also citing King v. Terry, 805 N.E.2d 397 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).) For instance, Cooper cites both Shideler v. Dwyer and Rice, in which the plaintiffs had malpractice claims but crafted their complaints in a way to describe claims carrying a longer statute of limitation than the more obvious claim of malpractice. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cooper Industries, LLC v. City of South Bend
green
2 sentences2012In Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 863 N.E.2d 1253, 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. granted, opinion vacated, 878 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. 2007) and vacated, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009), this court addressed whether South Bend’s claim under the ELA was time-barred by the general six-year statute of limitations. 2012In Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 863 N.E.2d 1253, 1256 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. granted, opinion vacated, 878 N.E.2d 219 (Ind.2007) and vacated, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009), this court addressed whether South Bend’s claim under the ELA was time-barred by the general six-year statute of limitations. | 3 | 2010–2012 |
WELCHES v. State
neutral
2 sentences2012In Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 863 N.E.2d 1253, 1256 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. granted, opinion vacated, 878 N.E.2d 219 (Ind. 2007) and vacated, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009), this court addressed whether South Bend’s claim under the ELA was time-barred by the general six-year statute of limitations. 2012In Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 863 N.E.2d 1253, 1256 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. granted, opinion vacated, 878 N.E.2d 219 (Ind.2007) and vacated, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009), this court addressed whether South Bend’s claim under the ELA was time-barred by the general six-year statute of limitations. | 2 | 2012–2012 |
King v. Terry
green
1 sentence2009(Appellant’s Br. 20-21, quoting Rice v. Strunk, 632 N.E.2d 1151, 1153 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), affd, 670 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind.1996). also citing King v. Terry, 805 N.E.2d 397 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).) For instance, Cooper cites both Shideler v. Dwyer and Rice, in which the plaintiffs had malpractice claims but crafted their complaints in a way to describe claims carrying a longer statute of limitation than the more obvious claim of malpractice. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Rice v. Strunk
green
1 sentence2009(Appellant’s Br. 20-21, quoting Rice v. Strunk, 632 N.E.2d 1151, 1153 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), affd, 670 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind.1996). also citing King v. Terry, 805 N.E.2d 397 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).) For instance, Cooper cites both Shideler v. Dwyer and Rice, in which the plaintiffs had malpractice claims but crafted their complaints in a way to describe claims carrying a longer statute of limitation than the more obvious claim of malpractice. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Poxon v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.
neutral
1 sentence1982The facts in Gaboury’s affidavit are considered to be true. 1 Poxon, supra. The trial court erred in granting South Bend’s motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.