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.
6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robson v. Texas Eastern Corp.green2 sentences2024Corp., 833 N.E.2d 461, 473 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“A debtor’s failure to schedule a cause of action as an asset in bankruptcy may also deprive the debtor of state court standing to pursue the unscheduled claim.”), trans. denied; Valley Fed. Sav. 2017Id. 'If the defendant establishes the plaintiffs knowledge of a claim and motive for concealment, the debtor-plaintiff then has the burden of coming forth with evidence indicating that the nondisclosure was made in good faith. | 1 | 3 |
Morgan County Hospital v. Uphamgreen2 sentences2023“An inference of bad faith arises when the party asserting judicial estoppel demonstrates that a debtor-plaintiff had knowledge of an unscheduled claim and motive for concealment in the face of a duty to disclose.” Id. 2011Morgan County Hosp. v. Upham, 884 N.E.2d 275, 280 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quotations and citations omitted), trans. denied. | 1 | 2 |
Valley Federal Savings Bank v. Andersongreen1 sentence2024Bank v. Anderson, 612 N.E.2d 1099, 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (“In the instant case because the trustee had not abandoned the Andersons’ right of action against Valley Bank, it belonged in the bankruptcy estate and the Andersons[ ] had no standing to bring the lawsuit.”). despite her knowing failure to schedule the claims in her bankruptcy plan). | 1 | 1 |
Shewmaker v. Ettergreen1 sentence2011In Shewmaker v. Etter, this court, and our supreme court by adoption, concluded that the dismissal of the plaintiffs bankruptcy, after the bankruptcy court permitted him to amend his schedule to include a previously undisclosed personal injury cause of action, returned the cause of action to him, and therefore the plaintiff was not divested of standing. 644 N.E.2d 922, 927-28 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 349 (b)), opinion expressly adopted, Hammes, 659 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Walter Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplexred1 sentence2005See 81 F.3d at 363 ; see also Burnes, 291 F.3d at 1287-88 . | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. Board of Educ. of City of New Yorkgreen1 sentence2005Compare Chandler v. Samford Univ., 35 F.Supp.2d 861, 864 (N.D.Ala.1999) (shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff-debtor after the party asserting judicial estoppel establishes certain underlying facts) with Murray v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 248 B.R. 484, 487 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (applying a singular analysis with no burden shift). *467 The better-developed test is that found in Ryan, which provides that an "inference" of bad faith arises when the party asserting judicial estoppel demonstrates that a debtor-plaintiff had knowledge of an unscheduled claim and motive for concealment in | 1 | 1 |
Chandler v. Samford Universitygreen1 sentence2005Compare Chandler v. Samford Univ., 35 F.Supp.2d 861, 864 (N.D.Ala.1999) (shifting the burden of proof to the plaintiff-debtor after the party asserting judicial estoppel establishes certain underlying facts) with Murray v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of N.Y., 248 B.R. 484, 487 (S.D.N.Y.2000) (applying a singular analysis with no burden shift). *467 The better-developed test is that found in Ryan, which provides that an "inference" of bad faith arises when the party asserting judicial estoppel demonstrates that a debtor-plaintiff had knowledge of an unscheduled claim and motive for concealment in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hammes v. Brumley
green
1 sentence2011In Shewmaker v. Etter, this court, and our supreme court by adoption, concluded that the dismissal of the plaintiffs bankruptcy, after the bankruptcy court permitted him to amend his schedule to include a previously undisclosed personal injury cause of action, returned the cause of action to him, and therefore the plaintiff was not divested of standing. 644 N.E.2d 922, 927-28 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 349 (b)), opinion expressly adopted, Hammes, 659 N.E.2d 1021 (Ind.1995). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lawrence Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation David's Restaurant Supply
green
1 sentence2005Froshiesar, 2002 WL 31972189 , at *4, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25537 at *11 (citing Hamilton, 270 F.3d at 784 ). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.