essential elements privilege (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

essential elements privilege in Indiana

25 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1972–2026 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.

Followed or applied (13)

CaseFollowedCited
Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc.green
ind · 2017 · cited in 5 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2026
2 sentences

2026But a plaintiff may plead itself out of court if its complaint alleges, and thus admits, the essential elements of a defense.” Bellwether Props., LLC v. Duke Energy Ind., Inc., 87 N.E.3d 462, 466 (Ind. 2017).

2020As we recounted in Bellwether, “[o]nly where a plaintiff has pleaded itself out of court by alleging, and thus admitting, the essential elements of a defense does its complaint fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted.” Id.

25
Nichols v. AMAX COAL COMPANYgreen
ind · 1986 · cited in 3 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2026
2 sentences

2026An example is where the “complaint shows on its face that the statute of limitations has run[.” Nichols v. Amax Coal Co., 490 N.E.2d 754, 755 (Ind. 1986)].

2019“An example is where the ‘complaint shows on its face that the statute of limitations has run.’” Id. (quoting Nichols, 490 N.E.2d at 755 )). [34] Indiana Code section 34-11-2-4(a)(2) (2013) provides in pertinent part that an action for injury to personal property must be commenced “within two years” after the cause of action accrues.

23
Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc.green
ind · 1996 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2017
2 sentences

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2014“Claims of privilege ‘must be made and sustained on a question-by-question or document-by-document basis.’ ” Hayworth, 669 N.E.2d at 169 (citation omitted).

22
Howard v. Dravetgreen
indctapp · 2004 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2017
2 sentences

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2014“The party seeking to avoid discovery has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind.Ct.App.2004).

22
Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co.green
indctapp · 1989 · cited in 4 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1991–2017
2 sentences

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

1991Ind.App., 547 N.E.2d 860 , 862: “The party seeking to avoid discovery has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.

14
Schrader v. Eli Lilly and Co.green
ind · 1994 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1997–2009
2 sentences

2009"The essential elements of the defense of qualified privilege are good faith, an interest to be upheld, a statement limited in its seope to this purpose, a proper occasion, and publication in a proper manner to the appropriate parties only." Schrader v. El Lilly & Co., 639 N.E.2d 258, 262 (Ind.1994).

1997Angus cites Schrader v. Eli Lilly and Co., 639 N.E.2d 258, 262 , (Ind.1994), wherein our supreme court described qualified privilege as follows: [Qualified] privilege applies to communications made in good faith on any subject matter in which the party making the communication has an interest or in reference to which he has a duty, either public or private, either legal, moral, or social, if made to a person having a corresponding interest or duty. ***** The essential elements of the defense of qualified privilege are good faith, an interest to be upheld, a statement limited in its scope to th

12
Indiana State Ethics Commission, Office of Inspector General, and David Thomas, in his Official Capacity as Inspector General v. Patricia Sanchezgreen
ind · 2014 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019See Ind. State Ethics Comm'n v. Sanchez , 18 N.E.3d 988 , 993 (Ind. 2014).

11
Colman v. Heidenreichgreen
ind · 1978 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
2 sentences

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

11
Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc.green
indctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017
1 sentence

2017Rather, the State—as the party seeking to avoid disclosure—“has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked.” Howard v. Dravet, 813 N.E.2d 1217, 1221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Petersen v. U.S. Reduction Co., 547 N.E.2d 860, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989)); see also Hayworth v. Schilli Leasing, Inc., 669 N.E.2d 165, 169 (Ind. 1996); Owens v. Best Beers of Bloomington, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (“The burden to prove the applicability of the privilege is on the one who asserts it.”) (citing Colman v. Heidenreich, 269 Ind. 419, 423 , 381 N.E.2

11
Brown v. Katzgreen
indctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014See Howard, 813 N.E.2d at 1221 (“[t]he party seeking to avoid discovery has the burden of establishing the essential elements of the privilege being invoked”) (citation omitted); Brown, 868 N.E.2d at 1167 (the provision of some rationale for the assertion of a privilege on question-by-question basis facilitates a court’s ability to rule on the matter with specificity).

11
Kelley v. Tanoosgreen
ind · 2007 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2009–2009
1 sentence

2009"Whether a defendant acted in good faith in making a statement usually is a question of fact for the jury." Kelley, 865 N.E.2d at 598 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

11
Mitchell v. Stategreen
ind · 1978 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999
2 sentences

1999See, e.g., Mitchell v. State, 270 Ind. 4 , 382 N.E.2d 932 (1978).

1999See, e.g., Mitchell v. State, 270 Ind. 4 , 382 N.E.2d 932 (1978).

11
Walters v. Kellam & Foley, Mussett, Nicholas & Stevenson, Inc.green
indctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
1 sentence

1980Accord, Walters v. Kellam & Foley (1977), Ind.App., 360 N.E.2d 199 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
Love v. State green
ind · 1984
1 sentence

2018In Love, the Indiana Supreme Court recognized the right to challenge selective prosecution if the prosecution is discriminatory in nature. 468 N.E.2d at 521 and we have held: The essential elements of a claim of selective prosecution are: “(1) that other violators similarly situated are generally not prosecuted; (2) that the selection of the claimant was ‘intentional or purposeful’; and (3) that the selection was pursuant to an ‘arbitrary classification.’” 2 W.

12018–2018
Michael v. Wolfe green
indctapp · 2000
1 sentence

2018“Generally, this means that the insured must establish the fault of the tortfeasor, the fact that there is no insurance policy covering the motorist or motor vehicle, and resulting damages.” Id. [8] After both parties rested, State Farm moved for judgment on the evidence claiming that Owens failed to prove all of the essential elements of her claim.

12018–2018
Community Hospitals of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., Neuro Division green
indctapp · 1992
1 sentence

1994Community Hospitals, 594 N.E.2d 448 .

11994–1994
Shallenberger v. Scoggins-Tomlinson, Inc. green
indctapp · 1982
1 sentence

1994Shallenberger v. Scoggins-Tomlinson, Inc. (1982), Ind.App., 439 N.E.2d 699 .

11994–1994
United States of America and William C. McCormick Special Agent, Irs v. J. Martin Lawless green
ca7 · 1983
1 sentence

1989United States v. Lawless (7th Cir.1983), 709 F.2d 485, 487 .

11989–1989
Tutwiler v. Snodgrass green
indctapp · 1981
1 sentence

1988Acra, supra. In an action for fraud, these elements are: "a material misrepresentation of past or existing fact, which representation is *830 false and made with knowledge or reckless ignorance of the falsity, and which causes reliance upon such representations to the detriment of the person so relying." Tutwiler, 428 N.E.2d at 1295 .

11988–1988
First National Bank of New Castle v. Acra green
indctapp · 1984
1 sentence

1988Acra, supra. In an action for fraud, these elements are: "a material misrepresentation of past or existing fact, which representation is *830 false and made with knowledge or reckless ignorance of the falsity, and which causes reliance upon such representations to the detriment of the person so relying." Tutwiler, 428 N.E.2d at 1295 .

11988–1988
Searcy v. Manganhas green
indctapp · 1981
1 sentence

1982Searcy v. Manganhas, (1981) Ind.App., 415 N.E.2d 142 , trans. denied.

11982–1982
Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co v. Croly green
ind · 1911
2 sentences

1972It is intended to be limited to that special class of cases where, as was said in Indianapolis Traction, etc. Co. v. Croly, 54 Ind. App. 566, 587 , 96 N. E. 973, 981 , (1913), (Transfer denied). ‘. . . their chances are equal; but the motorman [defendant] actually possesses the knowledge of the danger and appreciates the necessity of taking steps to avoid the injury, while the person injured has no actual knowledge of his danger, and does not appreciate the necessity of taking steps to avoid it.’ ” In that case we approved the giving of an instruction which states the essential elements of the

1972It is intended to be limited to that special class of cases where, as was said in Indianapolis Traction, etc. Co. v. Croly, 54 Ind. App. 566, 587 , 96 N. E. 973, 981 , (1913), (Transfer denied). ‘. . . their chances are equal; but the motorman [defendant] actually possesses the knowledge of the danger and appreciates the necessity of taking steps to avoid the injury, while the person injured has no actual knowledge of his danger, and does not appreciate the necessity of taking steps to avoid it.’ ” In that case we approved the giving of an instruction which states the essential elements of the

11972–1972

Statutes the citing opinions construe

IN § Ind. Code § 34-11-2-4 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 192 (1978–2025) TX 143 (1937–2024) TN 107 (1976–2024) WA 101 (1961–2026) ID 70 (1955–2026) LA 53 (1938–2022) GA 50 (1935–2024) NC 48 (1978–2025) WY 44 (1979–2020) NY 42 (1894–2025) CA 42 (1920–2026) NM 31 (1971–2025) IL 31 (1971–2026) FL 30 (1942–2026) CT 28 (1963–2019) MO 26 (1957–2016) IN 25 (1972–2026) MS 24 (1995–2025) MA 23 (1991–2025) HI 20 (1995–2026) OR 19 (1984–2025) AL 18 (1923–2024) PA 17 (1926–2024) OK 16 (1911–2021) WV 14 (1987–2025) KY 13 (1949–2026) KS 12 (1953–2021) VA 12 (1988–2025) IA 11 (1935–2026) ME 10 (2011–2023) MI 10 (2014–2026) MD 9 (1923–2010) VT 8 (2003–2026) NJ 8 (1979–2025) ND 6 (1978–1996) DC 6 (1979–2003) AZ 6 (1936–1983) MN 5 (1972–2016) UT 5 (1994–2023) RI 5 (1987–2006) SC 4 (1932–2000) MT 4 (1989–2022) CO 3 (1988–2025) SD 3 (1992–2002) AK 3 (1991–2014) AR 3 (1998–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check