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.
33 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Whyde v. Czarkowskigreen2 sentences2013Whyde v. Czarkowski, 659 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). 2013Whyde v. Czarkowski, 659 N.E.2d 625, 627 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). | 5 | 6 |
Egelhoff v. Egelhoff Ex Rel. Breinergreen2 sentences2024Further, the state law interfered with one of the principal goals of ERISA, which is “to enable employers ‘to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.’” Id. at 148, 121 S. Ct. at 1328 (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9 , 107 S. Ct. 2211, 2216 (1987)). [17] We find the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Melton v. Melton, 324 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2003), relying on Egelhoff, instructive. 2024Breiner, 532 U.S. 141, 148 (2001) (noting that “[o]ne of the principal goals of ERISA” is to enable “nationally uniform plan administration” and “‘provide[] a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits’” (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co., Inc. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9 (1987))); Estate of Kensinger v. URL Pharma, Inc., 674 F.3d 131 , 135–36 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting that, with ERISA, Congress adopted nationally uniform laws that do not “place[] the administrator in a hopeless bind: if it honored [the common law theory], it could be sued by the named benefi | 2 | 2 |
Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coynegreen2 sentences2025The Court held that the state law interfered with one of the main goals of ERISA, which is “to enable employers ‘to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.’” Id. at 148 (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9 (1987)). 2024Further, the state law interfered with one of the principal goals of ERISA, which is “to enable employers ‘to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.’” Id. at 148, 121 S. Ct. at 1328 (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9 , 107 S. Ct. 2211, 2216 (1987)). [17] We find the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Melton v. Melton, 324 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2003), relying on Egelhoff, instructive. | 2 | 2 |
BROWN EX REL. ESTATE OF SANGER v. Wrightgreen1 sentence2024Estate of Sanger v. Wright, 511 F. Supp. 2d 850, 853 (E.D. | 1 | 1 |
In re Estate of Lucien Couturegreen1 sentence2024Breiner, 532 U.S. 141, 148 (2001) (noting that “[o]ne of the principal goals of ERISA” is to enable “nationally uniform plan administration” and “‘provide[] a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits’” (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co., Inc. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9 (1987))); Estate of Kensinger v. URL Pharma, Inc., 674 F.3d 131 , 135–36 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting that, with ERISA, Congress adopted nationally uniform laws that do not “place[] the administrator in a hopeless bind: if it honored [the common law theory], it could be sued by the named benefi | 1 | 1 |
American Family Insurance Co. v. Beazer Homes Indiana, LLPgreen1 sentence2017Shafer v. Beazer Homes Indiana, LLP, 929 N.E.2d 853, 857 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). [10] Although the trial court set a hearing under Trial Rule 41(E) on the dismissal of Vermillion’s PCR petition, the CCS does not show that the hearing was held. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Arvizugreen1 sentence2013There is not a set rule as to what constitutes “reasonable suspicion,” but we “look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (citing Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18 ). | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. Stategreen1 sentence2012The Indiana Supreme Court has stated that a “trial court may refuse a motion for permission to withdraw if the court determines that there will be a resultant delay in the administration of justice.” See Bronaugh, 942 N.E.2d at 830 (citing Moore v. State, 557 N.E.2d 665, 668 (Ind. 1990) (recognizing the “late date” of a motion to withdraw filed three weeks before trial)). | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. City of Logansportgreen1 sentence2011He notes that while Indiana Trial Rule 56(C) no longer contains an absolute requirement that the trial court set a hearing on every motion for summary judgment, the rule does preserve the right to a hearing upon request made by a party “no later than ten (10) days after the response was filed or due.... ” Christmas states that it is “axiomatic that summary judgment procedure must be applied with extreme caution so that a party’s right to a fair determination of a genuine issue of fact is not jeopardized.” Christmas’s Br. at 19 (citing Jones v. City of Logansport, 436 N.E.2d 1138, 1143 (Ind.Ct. | 1 | 1 |
City of Fort Wayne v. State Ex Rel. Hoaglandgreen2 sentences2008See id. at 267-68 , 342 N.E.2d at 869 . 2008See id. at 267-68 , 342 N.E.2d at 869 . | 1 | 1 |
Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc.green1 sentence2007Reel v. Clarian Health Partners, Inc., 855 N.E.2d 343, 345 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Terryl L. Williamsgreen1 sentence2003Put another way, "similar conduct of similar offenders should be accorded similar treatment." U.S. v. Williams, 891 F.2d 962, 967 (Ist Cir.). | 1 | 1 |
Burke v. Capellogreen1 sentence1989See Burke, supra, 520 N.E.2d 489 ; Dolezal v. Goode (1982) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 828 , trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dolezal v. Goode
green
2 sentences1989See Burke, supra, 520 N.E.2d 489 ; Dolezal v. Goode (1982) 3d Dist.Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 828 , trans. denied. 1988Dolezal v. Goode (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 828, 831 . | 3 | 1988–1989 |
Melton v. Melton
green
2 sentences2025This supports a conclusion that ERISA preempts the state-law remedy imposed by the court here. [29] More directly on point is the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Melton v. Melton, 324 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2003), which relied on Egelhoff. 2024Further, the state law interfered with one of the principal goals of ERISA, which is “to enable employers ‘to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.’” Id. at 148, 121 S. Ct. at 1328 (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9 , 107 S. Ct. 2211, 2216 (1987)). [17] We find the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Melton v. Melton, 324 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2003), relying on Egelhoff, instructive. | 2 | 2024–2025 |
State Ex Rel. Arredondo v. Lake Circuit Court
green
2 sentences2009Arredondo v. Lake Circuit Court, 271 Ind. 176 , 391 N.E.2d 597 (1979), for example, the trial court set a hearing on an election contest petition for a date within, but near the end of, the twenty-day period allowed for by statute. 2009Arredondo v. Lake Circuit Court, 271 Ind. 176 , 391 N.E.2d 597 (1979), for example, the trial court set a hearing on an election contest petition for a date within, but near the end of, the twenty-day period allowed for by statute. | 2 | 2004–2009 |
Wielgus v. Lopez
green
2 sentences1995Wielgus v. Lopez (1988), Ind.App., 525 N.E.2d 1272, 1275 . 1990Wieligus v. Lopez (1988), Ind.App., 525 N.E.2d 1272, 1275 . | 2 | 1990–1995 |
Estate of Kensinger v. URL Pharma, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024Breiner, 532 U.S. 141, 148 (2001) (noting that “[o]ne of the principal goals of ERISA” is to enable “nationally uniform plan administration” and “‘provide[] a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits’” (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co., Inc. v. Coyne, 482 U.S. 1, 9 (1987))); Estate of Kensinger v. URL Pharma, Inc., 674 F.3d 131 , 135–36 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting that, with ERISA, Congress adopted nationally uniform laws that do not “place[] the administrator in a hopeless bind: if it honored [the common law theory], it could be sued by the named benefi | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Matthew Edmonds v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2019Edmonds v. State , 100 N.E.3d 258 , 261 (Ind. 2018). [11] Indiana Code section 31-17-2.2-1(a) provides that a "relocating individual"-a person who has or is seeking custody of a child or parenting time with a child and who intends to move their principal residence, Ind. Code § 31-9-2-107 .5 -"must file a notice of the intent to move[.]" Here, Mother filed such a notice, and Father responded with an objection in which he requested that the court set a hearing. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sabo v. Sabo
green
1 sentence2018Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 48A05-1705-PL-1041 | June 29, 2018 Page 4 of 17 he be found the rightful owner of the property, and that Lopez “vacate the premises and repay all due fees, fines, and encumbrances.” Id. at 2–3. [8] The court set a hearing for April 5, 2017 to rule on Esparza’s motion for “default.” Esparza filed another motion requesting that he be transported from prison so that he could attend this hearing. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dunn v. City of Indianapolis
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Paternity of K.I. ex rel. J.I. v. J.H.
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Cortez
green
1 sentence2013There is not a set rule as to what constitutes “reasonable suspicion,” but we “look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.” United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273 (2002) (citing Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-18 ). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Bronaugh v. State
green
1 sentence2012The Indiana Supreme Court has stated that a “trial court may refuse a motion for permission to withdraw if the court determines that there will be a resultant delay in the administration of justice.” See Bronaugh, 942 N.E.2d at 830 (citing Moore v. State, 557 N.E.2d 665, 668 (Ind. 1990) (recognizing the “late date” of a motion to withdraw filed three weeks before trial)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Multivest Properties v. Hughes
green
1 sentence2008Id. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kovacik v. Kovacik
green
2 sentences2005Id. 2005Id. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Vlach v. Goode
green
1 sentence1997Id. 'A plaintiff alleging medical malpractice must show (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff by the defendant, (2) a breach of the duty by allowing conduct to fall below a set standard of care, and (3) a compensable injury proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of the duty. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
BOARD OF ZON. APP., CITY OF FT. WAYNE v. Shell Oil
green
1 sentence1994Id. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Mitchell v. State
green
1 sentence1991Matter of Simpson, supra. In October, the trial court set a hearing on all pending motions for November 16, 1990, but Moore received no notice. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
New York Cent. RR Co. v. JOHNSON, ADMX., ETC.
green
2 sentences1988In 1955, this Court set a standard for dependency within the meaning of the wrongful death statute. "[PJroof of dependency must show a need or necessity for support on the part of the person alleged to be a dependent ... coupled with the contribution to such support by the deceased." New York Central Railroad Co. v. Johnson (1955), 234 Ind. 457, 465 , 127 N.E.2d 603, 607 . 1988In 1955, this Court set a standard for dependency within the meaning of the wrongful death statute. "[PJroof of dependency must show a need or necessity for support on the part of the person alleged to be a dependent ... coupled with the contribution to such support by the deceased." New York Central Railroad Co. v. Johnson (1955), 234 Ind. 457, 465 , 127 N.E.2d 603, 607 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| Petroski v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.