28 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tofany v. NBS Imaging Systems, Inc.green2 sentences1999Slutsky v. Crews, 713 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ind.Ct.App.1999); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165 , 167 n. 3 (Ind.1996) (Defensive collateral estoppel “forecloses plaintiff from asserting claim that plaintiff had previously liti *457 gated and lost against another defendant.”); Tofany, 616 N.E.2d at 1037 (“[W]hen the defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant, the use has been termed ‘defensive’ collateral estop-pel.”). 1999Slutsky v. Crews , 713 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc. , 669 N.E.2d 165 , 167 n.3 (Ind. 1996) (Defensive collateral estoppel "forecloses plaintiff from asserting claim that plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant."); Tofany , 616 N.E.2d at 1037 ("[W]hen the defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant, the use has been termed 'defensive' collateral estoppel."). | 4 | 4 |
Slutsky v. Crewsgreen2 sentences1999Slutsky v. Crews, 713 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ind.Ct.App.1999); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165 , 167 n. 3 (Ind.1996) (Defensive collateral estoppel “forecloses plaintiff from asserting claim that plaintiff had previously liti *457 gated and lost against another defendant.”); Tofany, 616 N.E.2d at 1037 (“[W]hen the defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant, the use has been termed ‘defensive’ collateral estop-pel.”). 1999Slutsky v. Crews , 713 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc. , 669 N.E.2d 165 , 167 n.3 (Ind. 1996) (Defensive collateral estoppel "forecloses plaintiff from asserting claim that plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant."); Tofany , 616 N.E.2d at 1037 ("[W]hen the defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant, the use has been termed 'defensive' collateral estoppel."). | 3 | 5 |
Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc.green2 sentences1999Slutsky v. Crews, 713 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ind.Ct.App.1999); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165 , 167 n. 3 (Ind.1996) (Defensive collateral estoppel “forecloses plaintiff from asserting claim that plaintiff had previously liti *457 gated and lost against another defendant.”); Tofany, 616 N.E.2d at 1037 (“[W]hen the defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant, the use has been termed ‘defensive’ collateral estop-pel.”). 1999Slutsky v. Crews , 713 N.E.2d 288, 291 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc. , 669 N.E.2d 165 , 167 n.3 (Ind. 1996) (Defensive collateral estoppel "forecloses plaintiff from asserting claim that plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant."); Tofany , 616 N.E.2d at 1037 ("[W]hen the defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant, the use has been termed 'defensive' collateral estoppel."). | 3 | 3 |
Bartle v. Health Quest Realty VIIgreen2 sentences2010Id. 2003Bartle, 768 N.E.2d at 917 (emphasis added). | 2 | 3 |
Small v. Centocor, Inc.green2 sentences2016Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22, 28 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), reh’g denied, trans. denied. 2015Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22, 28 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Richter v. Asbestos Insulating & Roofinggreen1 sentence2025Miller, 212 N.E.3d at 646 (noting that claim preclusion “prevent[s] a plaintiff from asserting a claim that the plaintiff previously litigated and lost”); Richter, 790 N.E.2d at 1004 (noting that subsequent action would effectively grant plaintiff “a second bite at the apple”). | 1 | 1 |
Ann Robbins v. Med-1 Solutions, LLCgreen1 sentence2023Practically speaking, because offensive claim preclusion is a “nonexistent” form of res judicata, a plaintiff cannot turn around in a subsequent action and “reassert a claim that he has already won.” Robbins v. MED-1 Solutions, LLC 13 F.4th 652, 657 (7th Cir. 2021). | 1 | 1 |
Pickett v. Pickettgreen2 sentences2002Pickett v. Pickett, 470 N.E.2d 751, 754 (Ind.Ct.App.1984). 2002Pickett v. Pickett, 470 N.E.2d 751, 754 (Ind.Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Sullivan v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa.green1 sentence2001Our supreme court, in Sullivan v. American Casualty, relaxed the once rigid standards of collateral estoppel, allowing a stranger to the first action to take advantage of collateral estoppel in a subsequent action. 605 N.E.2d 134, 188 (Ind.1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
green
2 sentences2023Under this subtype, a “defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost against another defendant.” Parklane Hosiery, 439 U.S. at 326 n.4. 2002Defensive collateral estoppel involves a situation where a "defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost." Id. | 8 | 1992–2023 |
Eichenberger v. Eichenberger
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2001Defensive collateral estoppel may be asserted in a situation where a "defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost." Eichenberger, 743 N.E.2d at 375 . | 2 | 2001–2013 |
Perez-Grahovac v. State
green
1 sentence2020Id. (citations omitted). 3 I. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Janet Freels v. James F. Koches and Sunset Builders, Inc.
green
1 sentence2019Id. [21] Where, as here, a defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim that the plaintiff has previously litigated and lost, the use has been termed “defensive” collateral estoppel. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Commitment of Heald
green
1 sentence2007Defensive collateral estoppel involves a situation where the defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost. *1234 Id. (citations and emphases omitted). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Pritchett v. Heil
green
2 sentences2004Defensive collateral estoppel may be asserted in a situation where a "defendant seeks to prevent a plaintiff from asserting a claim which the plaintiff had previously litigated and lost." Id. *912 The Minors' argument involves defensive collateral estoppel because they would be seeking to prevent the Club from asserting a claim which the Club would have allegedly litigated and lost before the IATC. 2004"The primary consideration in the defensive use of collateral estoppel is whether the party against whom the former adjudication is asserted had 'a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue and whether it would be otherwise unfair under the cireumstances' to permit the use of collateral estoppel in the subsequent action." Id. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Exide Corp. v. Millwright Riggers, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000Exide Corp., 727 N.E.2d at 477-78 ; Slutsky, 713 N.E.2d at 291 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Turner Transportation, Inc. v. Indiana Employment Security Board
green
1 sentence1984Turner Transportation, Inc. v. Indiana Employment Security Board, (1983) Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 300, 304 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.