touchstone analysis (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

touchstone analysis in Indiana

5 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2023 1 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Terry v. Ohiogreen
scotus · 1968 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2009
2 sentences

2009The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 [, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ] (1968).

2009The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 [, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ] (1968).

22
United States v. Brignoni-Poncegreen
scotus · 1975 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2009
2 sentences

2009Reasonableness, of course, depends "on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 [, 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 ] (1975).

2009Reasonableness, of course, depends "on a balance between the public interest and the individual's right to personal security free from arbitrary interference by law officers." United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 [, 95 S.Ct. 2574 , 45 L.Ed.2d 607 ] (1975).

22
Shultz v. Stategreen
indctapp · 2001 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
2 sentences

2005I would note that the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is whether an individual has a "constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy." Shultz v. State, 742 N.E.2d 961, 964 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

2005I would note that the touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is whether an individual has a "constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy." Shultz v. State, 742 N.E.2d 961, 964 (Ind.Ct.App.2001).

22
Howard Regional Health System v. Gordongreen
ind · 2011 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
2 sentences

2023Doe v. Ind. Dep’t of Ins., 194 N.E.3d 1197 , 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. [12] The touchstone of a claim of medical malpractice is the “‘curative or salutary conduct of a health care provider acting within his or her professional capacity.’” Metz, 115 N.E.3d at 495 (quoting Howard Reg’l Health Sys. v. Gordon, 952 N.E.2d 182, 185 (Ind. 2011)).

2023Claims that come within the purview of the Act must be based on “‘the provider’s behavior or practices while acting in his professional capacity as a provider of medical services.’” Metz, 115 N.E.3d at 495 (quoting Robertson v. Anonymous Clinic, 63 N.E.3d 349, 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied). [13] On the other hand, excluded from the Act is conduct “‘unrelated to the promotion of a patient’s health or the provider’s exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment.’” Metz, 115 N.E.3d at 495 (quoting Howard Reg’l Health Sys., 952 N.E.2d at 185 ).

11
Stephen W. Robertson, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Insurance, as Admin. of the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Anonymous Clinicgreen
indctapp · 2016 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Claims that come within the purview of the Act must be based on “‘the provider’s behavior or practices while acting in his professional capacity as a provider of medical services.’” Metz, 115 N.E.3d at 495 (quoting Robertson v. Anonymous Clinic, 63 N.E.3d 349, 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied). [13] On the other hand, excluded from the Act is conduct “‘unrelated to the promotion of a patient’s health or the provider’s exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment.’” Metz, 115 N.E.3d at 495 (quoting Howard Reg’l Health Sys., 952 N.E.2d at 185 ).

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 (2)

CaseCitedYears
Amy K. Metz, as Mother and Next Friend of Kiara K. Metz, an incapacitated minor v. Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center-Plymouth Campus, Inc. (mem. dec.) green
indctapp · 2018
2 sentences

2023Doe v. Ind. Dep’t of Ins., 194 N.E.3d 1197 , 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. [12] The touchstone of a claim of medical malpractice is the “‘curative or salutary conduct of a health care provider acting within his or her professional capacity.’” Metz, 115 N.E.3d at 495 (quoting Howard Reg’l Health Sys. v. Gordon, 952 N.E.2d 182, 185 (Ind. 2011)).

2023Claims that come within the purview of the Act must be based on “‘the provider’s behavior or practices while acting in his professional capacity as a provider of medical services.’” Metz, 115 N.E.3d at 495 (quoting Robertson v. Anonymous Clinic, 63 N.E.3d 349, 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied). [13] On the other hand, excluded from the Act is conduct “‘unrelated to the promotion of a patient’s health or the provider’s exercise of professional expertise, skill, or judgment.’” Metz, 115 N.E.3d at 495 (quoting Howard Reg’l Health Sys., 952 N.E.2d at 185 ).

12023–2023
Pennsylvania v. Mimms green
scotus · 1977
2 sentences

2001In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), the United States Supreme Court, confronting a claim that a weapon was improperly seized during a routine traffic stop, explained: The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the cireumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 [, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ] (1968).

2001In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 , 98 S.Ct. 330 , 54 L.Ed.2d 331 (1977), the United States Supreme Court, confronting a claim that a weapon was improperly seized during a routine traffic stop, explained: The touchstone of our analysis under the Fourth Amendment is always "the reasonableness in all the cireumstances of the particular governmental invasion of a citizen's personal security." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 [, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 ] (1968).

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

OH 467 (1982–2026) CA 52 (1978–2026) MA 36 (1988–2026) PA 35 (1980–2026) NY 33 (1914–2026) TX 30 (1976–2022) WA 26 (1976–2026) IL 21 (1985–2021) TN 17 (2001–2019) WI 15 (1994–2025) GA 15 (2012–2024) MD 15 (1979–2023) AZ 13 (1979–2022) OR 12 (2008–2022) MI 12 (1978–2024) AR 11 (1991–2024) CT 10 (1991–2016) IA 10 (2000–2019) FL 10 (1980–2024) VA 9 (1994–2025) MN 9 (1978–2023) UT 8 (2003–2019) MO 7 (1980–2023) NJ 7 (1975–2022) DC 7 (1991–2024) KY 5 (2023–2025) IN 5 (2001–2023) ME 5 (1973–2025) VT 4 (2008–2025) NE 4 (2008–2016) NM 4 (2009–2020) NC 4 (2012–2026) NH 4 (1985–2019) HI 4 (1973–2025) MS 4 (2002–2026) RI 3 (1993–2015) DE 3 (2019–2025) OK 3 (1997–2006) LA 3 (1996–2021) MT 3 (1979–2023) AL 2 (2000–2013) WY 2 (1989–2003) ID 2 (2018–2018) VI 2 (2011–2012) AK 2 (1979–2024) SC 2 (2013–2022)

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