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.
34 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1973–2023 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hite v. Vanderburgh County Office of Family & Childrengreen2 sentences2014Office of Family & Children, 845 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 2013Office of Family & Children, 845 N.E.2d 175, 179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). | 3 | 3 |
Pivarnik v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co.green2 sentences2015“Rather, ‘[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the [petitioner] advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon [the] court by the constitution or by statute.’” Id. (quoting Pivarnik, 636 N.E.2d at 137 ). . 2015Rather, “[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or by statute.” Pivarnik, 636 N.E.2d at 137 (emphasis added). *401 The Tax Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over all “original tax appeals.” Ind.Code §§ 33-26-3-1, -3 (2015). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Schuettergreen2 sentences2012In Varner, the court began its jurisdiction analysis by noting that “[sjubject matter jurisdiction entails a determination of whether a court has jurisdiction over the general class of actions to which a particular case belongs,” and that “[i]n making this determination, ‘[tjhe only relevant inquiry ... is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or by statute.’ ” Id. at 497 (quoting State v. Schuetter, 503 N.E.2d 418, 420 (Ind.Ct.App.1987)). 2009In making this determination, "(tlhe only relevant inquiry ... is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or by statute." State v. Schuetter, 503 N.E.2d 418, 420 (Ind.Ct.App.1987). | 2 | 2 |
Members v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See id. 2007Samuels, 849 N.E.2d at 690-91 ; Members, 851 N.E.2d at 981 . | 1 | 2 |
Behme v. Behmegreen2 sentences1998Behme v. Behme, 519 N.E.2d 578, 582 (Ind.Ct.App.1988). 1995Behme v. Behme (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 578, 582 , reh. denied. | 1 | 2 |
Kentucky v. Kinggreen1 sentence2023King, 563 U.S. at 469-70 (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Bernstein v. Bankertgreen2 sentences2016Id. at 217-18. [23] The Bernstein court distinguished Peniel on the basis that the court in that case “confronted a different kind of claim” because the plaintiffs in that case “were the owners of the real property in question and were not themselves responsible in any way for the contamination at the site[.]” Id. at 218 . 2016Id. at 217-18. [23] The Bernstein court distinguished Peniel on the basis that the court in that case “confronted a different kind of claim” because the plaintiffs in that case “were the owners of the real property in question and were not themselves responsible in any way for the contamination at the site[.]” Id. at 218 . | 1 | 1 |
Slagle v. Stategreen1 sentence1980See Slagle v. State, Ind.App., 393 N.E.2d 798 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences1994Brown v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 251 , 37 N.E.2d 73 . 1994Brown v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 251 , 37 N.E.2d 73 . | 4 | 1975–1994 |
Marion County Auditor v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2019Auditor v. State , 33 N.E.3d 398 , 400-01 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (quoting Pivarnik v. N. Ind. Pub. 2019Auditor v. State , 33 N.E.3d 398 , 400-01 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (quoting Pivarnik v. N. Ind. Pub. | 3 | 2018–2019 |
State Ex Rel. Young v. Noble Circuit Court
green
2 sentences1992When determining whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction, the relevant question is "whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general seope of the authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or by statute." Id. 1981Young v. Noble Circuit Court, (1975) 263 Ind. 353, 356-57 , 332 N.E.2d 99 , 101: “The only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or by statute. | 3 | 1981–1999 |
U.S. Steel Corp. v. Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals
green
2 sentences2005Id. [3] Although USS presents a more sympathetic case than the taxpayer in BP Amoco, we reach the same result. 2005Id. 3 Although USS presents a more sympathetic case than the taxpayer in BP Amoco, we reach the same result. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In Re KB
green
1 sentence2017In re K.B., 793 N.E.2d 1191 , 1199 n.6 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Matter of Adoption of HS
green
1 sentence2015“Rather, ‘[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the [petitioner] advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon [the] court by the constitution or by statute.’” Id. (quoting Pivarnik, 636 N.E.2d at 137 ). . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Varner v. Indiana Parole Board
green
1 sentence2012In Varner, the court began its jurisdiction analysis by noting that “[sjubject matter jurisdiction entails a determination of whether a court has jurisdiction over the general class of actions to which a particular case belongs,” and that “[i]n making this determination, ‘[tjhe only relevant inquiry ... is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon such court by the constitution or by statute.’ ” Id. at 497 (quoting State v. Schuetter, 503 N.E.2d 418, 420 (Ind.Ct.App.1987)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Samuels v. State
green
1 sentence2007Samuels, 849 N.E.2d at 690-91 ; Members, 851 N.E.2d at 981 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007This could not have been what the Supreme Court intended when it provided that plaintiffs must cast “direct doubt ” on the municipality’s purported rationale “either by demonstrating that the municipality’s evidence does not support its rationale or by furnishing evidence that disputes the municipality’s factual findings” in order to trigger the burden to “shift[ ] back to the municipality to supplement the record with evidence renewing support for a theory that justifies its ordinance.” Alameda Books, 535 U.S. at 438-39 , 122 S.Ct. 1728 (emphases added). 2007This could not have been what the Supreme Court intended when it provided that plaintiffs must cast “direct doubt ” on the municipality’s purported rationale “either by demonstrating that the municipality’s evidence does not support its rationale or by furnishing evidence that disputes the municipality’s factual findings” in order to trigger the burden to “shift[ ] back to the municipality to supplement the record with evidence renewing support for a theory that justifies its ordinance.” Alameda Books, 535 U.S. at 438-39 , 122 S.Ct. 1728 (emphases added). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Chemco Transport, Inc. v. Conn
green
2 sentences1988Id. 1988Conn. supra. In determining whether any court has subject matter jurisdiction the only relevant inquiry is whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon such court by the Constitution or by statute. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
1 sentence1982Id. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
White v. State
green
1 sentence1980White, supra. The kind of waiver Aker did sign appears to relate to Aker’s waiver of his right against self-incrimination in general and cannot be read as a valid waiver of his right to object to the introduction of polygraph test results by Pavone. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Bleiweiss v. State
green
2 sentences1973State (1918), 188 Ind. 184 , 119 N.E. 375 , 122 N.E. 577 . . . .” The court stated, in England v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 446 , 233 N.E.2d 168 , as follows: “We conclude the offering of the check to the teller with no instructions, when this act is generally construed in the banking industry as a request to exchange said check for cash, is sufficient conduct to warrant the jury to believe that the appellant intended to cash a forged instrument. . . *249 *248 It is our opinion that Instruction Number 1 is not a model instruction to be given juries in future cases of the kind at bar. *249 However 1973State (1918), 188 Ind. 184 , 119 N.E. 375 , 122 N.E. 577 . . . .” The court stated, in England v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 446 , 233 N.E.2d 168 , as follows: “We conclude the offering of the check to the teller with no instructions, when this act is generally construed in the banking industry as a request to exchange said check for cash, is sufficient conduct to warrant the jury to believe that the appellant intended to cash a forged instrument. . . *249 *248 It is our opinion that Instruction Number 1 is not a model instruction to be given juries in future cases of the kind at bar. *249 However | 1 | 1973–1973 |
England v. State
green
2 sentences1973State (1918), 188 Ind. 184 , 119 N.E. 375 , 122 N.E. 577 . . . .” The court stated, in England v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 446 , 233 N.E.2d 168 , as follows: “We conclude the offering of the check to the teller with no instructions, when this act is generally construed in the banking industry as a request to exchange said check for cash, is sufficient conduct to warrant the jury to believe that the appellant intended to cash a forged instrument. . . *249 *248 It is our opinion that Instruction Number 1 is not a model instruction to be given juries in future cases of the kind at bar. *249 However 1973State (1918), 188 Ind. 184 , 119 N.E. 375 , 122 N.E. 577 . . . .” The court stated, in England v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 446 , 233 N.E.2d 168 , as follows: “We conclude the offering of the check to the teller with no instructions, when this act is generally construed in the banking industry as a request to exchange said check for cash, is sufficient conduct to warrant the jury to believe that the appellant intended to cash a forged instrument. . . *249 *248 It is our opinion that Instruction Number 1 is not a model instruction to be given juries in future cases of the kind at bar. *249 However | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.
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.