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.
41 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1871–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burnett v. Stategreen2 sentences1983(Emphasis supplied.) Frazier, 268 Ind. at 618, 885 N.E.2d at 625. 1983(Emphasis supplied.) Frazier, 268 Ind. at 618, 885 N.E.2d at 625. | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. McMinn v. Gentrygreen2 sentences2015Moore, 680 N.E.2d at 865 (citing Webster v. State, 673 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing State ex rel McMinn v. Gentry, 229 Ind. 615 , 100 N.E.2d 676, 678 (1951)), trans. denied). 2015Moore, 680 N.E.2d at 865 (citing Webster v. State, 673 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing State ex rel McMinn v. Gentry, 229 Ind. 615 , 100 N.E.2d 676, 678 (1951)), trans. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Webster v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Moore, 680 N.E.2d at 865 (citing Webster v. State, 673 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing State ex rel McMinn v. Gentry, 229 Ind. 615 , 100 N.E.2d 676, 678 (1951)), trans. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Lamb v. Condergreen1 sentence1983Thus, notwithstanding the majority's assertion to the contrary, I do not believe the supreme court in Frazier has "explicitly removed post-conviction cases from the ambit of TR. 8(C)." The pertinent language in Frazier is as follows: The motion should have been regarded as an answer of waiver or laches which, under the holding of Langley; Richardson (supra) the petitioner would have had to litigate against, notwithstanding that Civil Trial Rule 8(C) would place the burden of proof upon the State. 263 Ind. at 618, 335 N.E.2d at 625. | 1 | 1 |
Magley v. Stategreen1 sentence1983Thus, notwithstanding the majority's assertion to the contrary, I do not believe the supreme court in Frazier has "explicitly removed post-conviction cases from the ambit of TR. 8(C)." The pertinent language in Frazier is as follows: The motion should have been regarded as an answer of waiver or laches which, under the holding of Langley; Richardson (supra) the petitioner would have had to litigate against, notwithstanding that Civil Trial Rule 8(C) would place the burden of proof upon the State. 263 Ind. at 618, 335 N.E.2d at 625. | 1 | 1 |
City of Peru v. Coxgreen2 sentences1935See City of Peru v. Cox (1909), 173 Ind. 241 , 90 N. E. 7 . 1935See City of Peru v. Cox (1909), 173 Ind. 241 , 90 N. E. 7 . | 1 | 1 |
| Kimberlin v. Towgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watts v. Sweeney
green
2 sentences1930A different, and we believe a less reasonable and possibly an erroneous, view was taken in the civil cases of Watts, Trustee, v. Sweeney (1891), 127 Ind. 116 , 26 N. 680, 22 Am. 1929In Watts, Trustee, v. Sweeney (1891), 127 Ind. 116 , 26 N. E. 680 , 22 Am. | 5 | 1897–1930 |
Brink v. Reid
green
2 sentences1929In holding there was no available error in the ruling, the court, at page 126, said: “That when a party first files an answer in bar he can not afterwards file an answer in abatement, even by leave of court, has been settled by a decision of this court in the case of Brink v. Reid, 122 Ind. 257 [ 23 N. E. 770 ], and having been so held and the statute, section 365 R. 1929In holding there was no available error in the ruling, the court, at page 126, said: “That when a party first files an answer in bar he can not afterwards file an answer in abatement, even by leave of court, has been settled by a decision of this court in the case of Brink v. Reid, 122 Ind. 257 [ 23 N. E. 770 ], and having been so held and the statute, section 365 R. | 4 | 1891–1929 |
Campbell v. Routt
green
2 sentences1898Conger v. Miller, 104 Ind. 594 ; Campbell v. Routt, Admr., 42 Ind. 410 . 1886Campbell v. Routt, 42 Ind. 410 ; Thompson v. Toohey, 71 Ind. 296; Anderson, etc., Ass’n v. Thompson, 88 Ind. 405 ; Conger v. Miller, supra. The paragraph under consideration was regarded below, by court and counsel, as a cross complaint, and it must be so considered here. | 2 | 1886–1898 |
Field v. Malone
neutral
2 sentences1897Collins v. Nichols, 7 Ind. 447 ; Jones v. Cincinnati, Type Foundry Co., 14 Ind. 89 ; Field v. Malone, 102 Ind. 251 ; Glidden v. Henry, 104 Ind. 278 ; Brink v. Reid, 122 Ind. 257 ; Watts v. Sweeney, 127 Ind. 116 . 1894Dwiggins v. Clark, 94 Ind. 49 ; Field v. Malone, 102 Ind. 251 ; R. | 2 | 1894–1897 |
Dwiggins v. Clark
neutral
2 sentences1894Dwiggins v. Clark, 94 Ind. 49 ; Field v. Malone, 102 Ind. 251 ; R. 1891Dwiggins v. Clark, 94 Ind. 49 . | 2 | 1891–1894 |
Moore v. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2015Moore, 680 N.E.2d at 865 (citing Webster v. State, 673 N.E.2d 509, 512 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (citing State ex rel McMinn v. Gentry, 229 Ind. 615 , 100 N.E.2d 676, 678 (1951)), trans. denied). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Langley v. State
green
2 sentences1983Discussing burden of proof in such cases, Justice Prentice said The motion should have been regarded as an answer of waiver or laches which, under the holding of Langley; Richardson [v. State (1971) 256 Ind. 199 , 267 N.E.2d 538 ] (supra ) the petitioner would have had to litigate against, notwithstanding that Civil Trial Rule 8(C) would place the burden of proof upon the State. 1983Discussing burden of proof in such cases, Justice Prentice said The motion should have been regarded as an answer of waiver or laches which, under the holding of Langley; Richardson [v. State (1971) 256 Ind. 199 , 267 N.E.2d 538 ] (supra ) the petitioner would have had to litigate against, notwithstanding that Civil Trial Rule 8(C) would place the burden of proof upon the State. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. Heslar, Extrx.
green
2 sentences1977In the case of Teeple v. State ex rel. (1908), 171 Ind. 268 , 86 N.E. 49 , wherein the sufficiency of Appellant’s brief was questioned because of an omission of a ruling and exception thereto as required by the court’s rule the court held, “It is not necesary to determine whether such ruling and exception thereto are sufficiently set forth in appellant’s brief, because the relators have cured the defect, if any, in appellant’s brief by copying the order-book entry of said ruling and appellant’s exceptions thereto in their brief, thus accomplishing the purpose of the rule.” See also, State v. H 1977In the case of Teeple v. State ex rel. (1908), 171 Ind. 268 , 86 N.E. 49 , wherein the sufficiency of Appellant’s brief was questioned because of an omission of a ruling and exception thereto as required by the court’s rule the court held, “It is not necesary to determine whether such ruling and exception thereto are sufficiently set forth in appellant’s brief, because the relators have cured the defect, if any, in appellant’s brief by copying the order-book entry of said ruling and appellant’s exceptions thereto in their brief, thus accomplishing the purpose of the rule.” See also, State v. H | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Teeple v. State ex rel. Bower
green
2 sentences1977In the case of Teeple v. State ex rel. (1908), 171 Ind. 268 , 86 N.E. 49 , wherein the sufficiency of Appellant’s brief was questioned because of an omission of a ruling and exception thereto as required by the court’s rule the court held, “It is not necesary to determine whether such ruling and exception thereto are sufficiently set forth in appellant’s brief, because the relators have cured the defect, if any, in appellant’s brief by copying the order-book entry of said ruling and appellant’s exceptions thereto in their brief, thus accomplishing the purpose of the rule.” See also, State v. H 1977In the case of Teeple v. State ex rel. (1908), 171 Ind. 268 , 86 N.E. 49 , wherein the sufficiency of Appellant’s brief was questioned because of an omission of a ruling and exception thereto as required by the court’s rule the court held, “It is not necesary to determine whether such ruling and exception thereto are sufficiently set forth in appellant’s brief, because the relators have cured the defect, if any, in appellant’s brief by copying the order-book entry of said ruling and appellant’s exceptions thereto in their brief, thus accomplishing the purpose of the rule.” See also, State v. H | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Allman v. Malsbury
green
2 sentences1966“Unless a specific objection to a question is made, the admission of the answer is not error, and in the motion for a new trial or on appeal, the party is confined to the specific objection so made, and all other possible objections are waived.” Allman v. Malsbury (1946), 224 Ind. 177, 186 , 65 N. E. 2d 106 ; Ellis et al. v. Haines (1963), 134 Ind. App. 528, 536 , 188 N. E. 2d 835 . 1966“Unless a specific objection to a question is made, the admission of the answer is not error, and in the motion for a new trial or on appeal, the party is confined to the specific objection so made, and all other possible objections are waived.” Allman v. Malsbury (1946), 224 Ind. 177, 186 , 65 N. E. 2d 106 ; Ellis et al. v. Haines (1963), 134 Ind. App. 528, 536 , 188 N. E. 2d 835 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
ELLIS v. Haines
neutral
2 sentences1966“Unless a specific objection to a question is made, the admission of the answer is not error, and in the motion for a new trial or on appeal, the party is confined to the specific objection so made, and all other possible objections are waived.” Allman v. Malsbury (1946), 224 Ind. 177, 186 , 65 N. E. 2d 106 ; Ellis et al. v. Haines (1963), 134 Ind. App. 528, 536 , 188 N. E. 2d 835 . 1966“Unless a specific objection to a question is made, the admission of the answer is not error, and in the motion for a new trial or on appeal, the party is confined to the specific objection so made, and all other possible objections are waived.” Allman v. Malsbury (1946), 224 Ind. 177, 186 , 65 N. E. 2d 106 ; Ellis et al. v. Haines (1963), 134 Ind. App. 528, 536 , 188 N. E. 2d 835 . | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Rice v. Magenheimer
neutral
2 sentences1960Rice v. Magenheimer (1947), 225 Ind. 441, 445 , 75 N. E. 2d 906 ; Armstrong v. Presslor (1947), 225 Ind. 291, 295 , 73 N. E. 2d 751 . 1960Rice v. Magenheimer (1947), 225 Ind. 441, 445 , 75 N. E. 2d 906 ; Armstrong v. Presslor (1947), 225 Ind. 291, 295 , 73 N. E. 2d 751 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Armstrong v. Presslor
green
2 sentences1960Rice v. Magenheimer (1947), 225 Ind. 441, 445 , 75 N. E. 2d 906 ; Armstrong v. Presslor (1947), 225 Ind. 291, 295 , 73 N. E. 2d 751 . 1960Rice v. Magenheimer (1947), 225 Ind. 441, 445 , 75 N. E. 2d 906 ; Armstrong v. Presslor (1947), 225 Ind. 291, 295 , 73 N. E. 2d 751 . | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Moore v. State
neutral
2 sentences1952Moore v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 578, 580 , 159 N. E. 154 . 1952Moore v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 578, 580 , 159 N. E. 154 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Weathers v. Newman
neutral
1 sentence1952Codding v. Whitaker (1840), 5 Blackf. 470 ; Weathers v. Newman (1823), 1 Blackf. 232 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Codding v. Whitaker
neutral
1 sentence1952Codding v. Whitaker (1840), 5 Blackf. 470 ; Weathers v. Newman (1823), 1 Blackf. 232 . | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Wilson v. Clark
neutral
2 sentences1952Wilson v. Clark (1858), 11 Ind. 385 ; Pixley v. Van Nostern (1884), 100 Ind. 34 ; Bostwick v. Bryant (1888), 113 Ind. 448 , 16 N. E. 378 . *214 *213 It has been held that an answer which denies the *214 character of the plaintiff as administrator is an answer in bar and not in abatement, and a plea of ne unques administrator may be pleaded in bar. 1952Wilson v. Clark (1858), 11 Ind. 385 ; Pixley v. Van Nostern (1884), 100 Ind. 34 ; Bostwick v. Bryant (1888), 113 Ind. 448 , 16 N. E. 378 . *214 *213 It has been held that an answer which denies the *214 character of the plaintiff as administrator is an answer in bar and not in abatement, and a plea of ne unques administrator may be pleaded in bar. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Pixley v. VanNostern
neutral
2 sentences1952Wilson v. Clark (1858), 11 Ind. 385 ; Pixley v. Van Nostern (1884), 100 Ind. 34 ; Bostwick v. Bryant (1888), 113 Ind. 448 , 16 N. E. 378 . *214 *213 It has been held that an answer which denies the *214 character of the plaintiff as administrator is an answer in bar and not in abatement, and a plea of ne unques administrator may be pleaded in bar. 1952Wilson v. Clark (1858), 11 Ind. 385 ; Pixley v. Van Nostern (1884), 100 Ind. 34 ; Bostwick v. Bryant (1888), 113 Ind. 448 , 16 N. E. 378 . *214 *213 It has been held that an answer which denies the *214 character of the plaintiff as administrator is an answer in bar and not in abatement, and a plea of ne unques administrator may be pleaded in bar. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Bostwick v. Bryant
green
2 sentences1952Wilson v. Clark (1858), 11 Ind. 385 ; Pixley v. Van Nostern (1884), 100 Ind. 34 ; Bostwick v. Bryant (1888), 113 Ind. 448 , 16 N. E. 378 . *214 *213 It has been held that an answer which denies the *214 character of the plaintiff as administrator is an answer in bar and not in abatement, and a plea of ne unques administrator may be pleaded in bar. 1952Wilson v. Clark (1858), 11 Ind. 385 ; Pixley v. Van Nostern (1884), 100 Ind. 34 ; Bostwick v. Bryant (1888), 113 Ind. 448 , 16 N. E. 378 . *214 *213 It has been held that an answer which denies the *214 character of the plaintiff as administrator is an answer in bar and not in abatement, and a plea of ne unques administrator may be pleaded in bar. | 1 | 1952–1952 |
Boland v. Claudel
green
2 sentences1945Kilty v. Michael (1921), 190 Ind. 374 , 130 N. E. 531 ; Boland v. Claudel (1914), 181 Ind. 295 , 104 N. E. 577 ; Mansfield v. Hinckle (1924), 81 Ind. App. 6 , 139 N. E. 700 ; Estey v. Barnes (1896), 14 Ind. App. 446 , 42 N. E. 1118 . 1945Kilty v. Michael (1921), 190 Ind. 374 , 130 N. E. 531 ; Boland v. Claudel (1914), 181 Ind. 295 , 104 N. E. 577 ; Mansfield v. Hinckle (1924), 81 Ind. App. 6 , 139 N. E. 700 ; Estey v. Barnes (1896), 14 Ind. App. 446 , 42 N. E. 1118 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Kilty v. Michael
neutral
2 sentences1945Kilty v. Michael (1921), 190 Ind. 374 , 130 N. E. 531 ; Boland v. Claudel (1914), 181 Ind. 295 , 104 N. E. 577 ; Mansfield v. Hinckle (1924), 81 Ind. App. 6 , 139 N. E. 700 ; Estey v. Barnes (1896), 14 Ind. App. 446 , 42 N. E. 1118 . 1945Kilty v. Michael (1921), 190 Ind. 374 , 130 N. E. 531 ; Boland v. Claudel (1914), 181 Ind. 295 , 104 N. E. 577 ; Mansfield v. Hinckle (1924), 81 Ind. App. 6 , 139 N. E. 700 ; Estey v. Barnes (1896), 14 Ind. App. 446 , 42 N. E. 1118 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Estey v. Barnes
neutral
2 sentences1945Kilty v. Michael (1921), 190 Ind. 374 , 130 N. E. 531 ; Boland v. Claudel (1914), 181 Ind. 295 , 104 N. E. 577 ; Mansfield v. Hinckle (1924), 81 Ind. App. 6 , 139 N. E. 700 ; Estey v. Barnes (1896), 14 Ind. App. 446 , 42 N. E. 1118 . 1945Kilty v. Michael (1921), 190 Ind. 374 , 130 N. E. 531 ; Boland v. Claudel (1914), 181 Ind. 295 , 104 N. E. 577 ; Mansfield v. Hinckle (1924), 81 Ind. App. 6 , 139 N. E. 700 ; Estey v. Barnes (1896), 14 Ind. App. 446 , 42 N. E. 1118 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
Mansfield v. Hinckle
neutral
2 sentences1945Kilty v. Michael (1921), 190 Ind. 374 , 130 N. E. 531 ; Boland v. Claudel (1914), 181 Ind. 295 , 104 N. E. 577 ; Mansfield v. Hinckle (1924), 81 Ind. App. 6 , 139 N. E. 700 ; Estey v. Barnes (1896), 14 Ind. App. 446 , 42 N. E. 1118 . 1945Kilty v. Michael (1921), 190 Ind. 374 , 130 N. E. 531 ; Boland v. Claudel (1914), 181 Ind. 295 , 104 N. E. 577 ; Mansfield v. Hinckle (1924), 81 Ind. App. 6 , 139 N. E. 700 ; Estey v. Barnes (1896), 14 Ind. App. 446 , 42 N. E. 1118 . | 1 | 1945–1945 |
| Price v. State neutral | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Biddle v. State
neutral
2 sentences1930Biddle v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 284, 287 , 157 N. E. 280 . 1930Biddle v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 284, 287 , 157 N. E. 280 . | 1 | 1930–1930 |
| Patterson v. Mercer neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| D. S. Morgan & Co. v. White green | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Blake v. Blake neutral | 1 | 1929–1929 |
| Over v. Shannon green | 1 | 1927–1927 |
| Ayrshire Coal Co. v. Thurman neutral | 1 | 1924–1924 |
| Moore v. Sargent green | 1 | 1918–1918 |
| Winer v. Mast neutral | 1 | 1918–1918 |
| Voluntary Relief Department of Pennsylvania Lines West of Pittsburgh v. Spencer neutral | 1 | 1918–1918 |
| Conwell v. Finnell neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Smith v. Baxter neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Pratt v. Wallbridge neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Billan v. Hercklebrath neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Frazee v. Frazee neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Lash v. Rendell green | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Osborne & Co. v. Hanlin neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.