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.
29 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kikkert v. Krummgreen2 sentences2019John , our Supreme Court noted: In Kikkert v. Krumm , 474 N.E.2d 503 , 505 (Ind. 1985), we discussed the obdurate behavior exception to the American rule, but found it inapplicable under the facts presented. 2011The Department also seeks fees in accordance with the obdurate behavior exception to the "American Rule.” The obdurate behavior exception, however, "provides a remedy [only] for defendants who are dragged into baseless litigation.” Cf., Kikkert v. Krumm, 474 N.E.2d 503, 505 (Ind.1985) with Ind. Code § 34 — 52—1—1(b) (2011) (allowing both plaintiffs and defendants to recover attorney fees). | 8 | 16 |
Loparex, LLC v. MPI Release Technologies, LLCgreen2 sentences2020See Loparex, 964 N.E.2d at 816 n.5; Town of St. 2016See also Loparex, 964 N.E.2d at 816 n.5. | 2 | 2 |
State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. Johngreen2 sentences2019John , 751 N.E.2d at 658 (internal citations omitted). [28] River Ridge argues that the obdurate behavior exception no longer exists because it has been codified in Indiana Code Section 34-52-1-1(b). 2011John, 751 N.E.2d 657, 659 (Ind.2001) (explaining that the obdurate behavior exception to the "American Rule” has been codified in Indiana Code § 34-52-1-1). 2 . | 2 | 2 |
Cox v. Ubikgreen2 sentences1989“The nature of an attorney fee award under the obdurate behavior exception is punitive, designed to reimburse a prevailing party who has been dragged into baseless litigation and thereby subjected to great expense.” Kikkert v. Krumm (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 503, 505 (emphasis in text) (citing Cox v. Ubik (1981), Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 127 ; Hall v. Cole (1973), 412 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1943 , 36 *772 L.Ed.2d 702). 1982Given this record we must conclude Welfare’s initial denial of the Engleharts’ claims had some merit and consequently was not baseless. *133 Finally, it is readily apparent the obdurate behavior exception to the general rule on attorney fees espoused in Cox v. Ubik, supra, is punitive in nature. | 1 | 6 |
Hall v. Colegreen2 sentences1989“The nature of an attorney fee award under the obdurate behavior exception is punitive, designed to reimburse a prevailing party who has been dragged into baseless litigation and thereby subjected to great expense.” Kikkert v. Krumm (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 503, 505 (emphasis in text) (citing Cox v. Ubik (1981), Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 127 ; Hall v. Cole (1973), 412 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1943 , 36 *772 L.Ed.2d 702). 1989“The nature of an attorney fee award under the obdurate behavior exception is punitive, designed to reimburse a prevailing party who has been dragged into baseless litigation and thereby subjected to great expense.” Kikkert v. Krumm (1985), Ind., 474 N.E.2d 503, 505 (emphasis in text) (citing Cox v. Ubik (1981), Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 127 ; Hall v. Cole (1973), 412 U.S. 1 , 93 S.Ct. 1943 , 36 *772 L.Ed.2d 702). | 1 | 4 |
Margaret Kosarko v. William A. Padula, Administrator of the Estate of Daniel L. Herndoblergreen1 sentence2019See, e.g., Kosarko , 979 N.E.2d at 149 -50 . | 1 | 1 |
Lacey v. Indiana Department of State Revenuegreen1 sentence2011See generally Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey I), 894 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. Tax Ct.2008), review denied (regarding 2006); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey I Interim Order), No. 49T10-0711-TA-70, slip, op., 2008 WL 1103786 (Ind. Tax Ct. Apr. 11, 2008) (granting, in part, the Department’s first motion for judgment on the pleadings); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II), 948 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Tax Ct.2011) (regarding 2007); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II Interim Order), No. 49T10-0906-TA-25, slip op., 2009 WL 3426348, at *5 (Ind. Tax Ct. Oct | 1 | 1 |
Lacey v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenuegreen1 sentence2011See generally Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey I), 894 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. Tax Ct.2008), review denied (regarding 2006); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey I Interim Order), No. 49T10-0711-TA-70, slip, op., 2008 WL 1103786 (Ind. Tax Ct. Apr. 11, 2008) (granting, in part, the Department’s first motion for judgment on the pleadings); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II), 948 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Tax Ct.2011) (regarding 2007); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II Interim Order), No. 49T10-0906-TA-25, slip op., 2009 WL 3426348, at *5 (Ind. Tax Ct. Oct | 1 | 1 |
Greensburg Local 761 Printing Specialities v. Robbinsgreen1 sentence1999Greensburg Local No. 761 Printing Specialities v. Robbins, 549 N.E.2d 79, 80 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), reh’g denied, 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kahn v. Cundiff
green
2 sentences2020In Kahn, we adopted the panel’s comparison of the statute and the common law—that the General Recovery Rule does not require a party to have acted with “an improper motive,” whereas the obdurate behavior exception does. 533 N.E.2d at 171 . 1991Kahn v. Cundiff (1989) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 533 N.E.2d 164 , adopted upon transfer 543 N.E.2d 627 , did not discuss the obdurate behavior exception except in the context of I.C. 34-1-32-1 itself. | 2 | 1991–2020 |
Matter of Estate of Kroslack
green
2 sentences2019This court, however, affirmed the award of attorney fees based on the party's bad faith and conduct, which was "vexatious and oppressive in the extreme." Id. at 121 . 2019Moreover, the obdurate behavior exception was inapplicable because it only applied to "situations in which the defendant has been forced to defend a baseless claim." Kroslack , 570 N.E.2d at 120 . | 2 | 1992–2019 |
State v. Denny
green
2 sentences1984Therefore because Welfare [Department of Welfare] is a governmental entity punitive damages cannot be assessed against it under the reasoning of the recent decision in State v. Denny, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 240 .” 436 N.E.2d at 133 . 1984Therefore because Welfare [Department of Welfare] is a governmental entity punitive damages cannot be assessed against it under the reasoning of the recent decision in State v. Denny, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 240 ." 436 N.E.2d at 133 . | 2 | 1982–1984 |
Lacey v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
green
1 sentence2011See generally Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey I), 894 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. Tax Ct.2008), review denied (regarding 2006); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey I Interim Order), No. 49T10-0711-TA-70, slip, op., 2008 WL 1103786 (Ind. Tax Ct. Apr. 11, 2008) (granting, in part, the Department’s first motion for judgment on the pleadings); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II), 948 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Tax Ct.2011) (regarding 2007); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II Interim Order), No. 49T10-0906-TA-25, slip op., 2009 WL 3426348, at *5 (Ind. Tax Ct. Oct | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Lacey v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
green
1 sentence2011See generally Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey I), 894 N.E.2d 1113 (Ind. Tax Ct.2008), review denied (regarding 2006); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey I Interim Order), No. 49T10-0711-TA-70, slip, op., 2008 WL 1103786 (Ind. Tax Ct. Apr. 11, 2008) (granting, in part, the Department’s first motion for judgment on the pleadings); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II), 948 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Tax Ct.2011) (regarding 2007); Lacey v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Lacey II Interim Order), No. 49T10-0906-TA-25, slip op., 2009 WL 3426348, at *5 (Ind. Tax Ct. Oct | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Cap Gemini America, Inc. v. Judd
green
1 sentence1993Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Kahn v. Cundiff
green
2 sentences1991App., 533 N.E.2d 164 , adopted upon transfer 543 N.E.2d 627 , did not discuss the obdurate behavior exception except in the context of I.C. 1991Kahn v. Cundiff (1989) 1st Dist.Ind.App., 533 N.E.2d 164 , adopted upon transfer 543 N.E.2d 627 , did not discuss the obdurate behavior exception except in the context of I.C. 34-1-32-1 itself. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Baker v. Townsend
yellow
1 sentence1989Baker v. Townsend (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 192 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Orr v. Turco Manufacturing Co.
green
1 sentence1989Co. (1987), Ind., 512 N.E.2d 151 concerning the power to award appellate attorney fees under Appellate Rule 15. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Saint Joseph's College v. Morrison, Inc.
green
2 sentences1984Saint Joseph's College v. Morrison, Inc. (1973), 158 Ind.App. 272 , 302 N.E.2d 865, 871 . 1984Saint Joseph's College v. Morrison, Inc. (1973), 158 Ind.App. 272 , 302 N.E.2d 865, 871 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
In Re Wardship of Turrin
green
2 sentences1984Therefore because Welfare [Department of Welfare] is a governmental entity punitive damages cannot be assessed against it under the reasoning of the recent decision in State v. Denny, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 240 .” 436 N.E.2d at 133 . 1984Therefore because Welfare [Department of Welfare] is a governmental entity punitive damages cannot be assessed against it under the reasoning of the recent decision in State v. Denny, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 240 ." 436 N.E.2d at 133 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.