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.
25 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. Geelsgreen2 sentences2000However, where the landlord fails to comply with the statutory notice requirement this “constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit.” I.C. § 32-7-5-15; Pinnacle Props. v. Saulka, 693 N.E.2d 101, 103-04 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. *303 We further note that “the Security Deposit statute applies only to security deposits” and that the statute “clearly and unambiguously preserves the right of the landlord ... to recover other damages to which [he or she] is entitled.” I.C. § 32-7-5-12(c) 5 ; Mi 1997Miller v. Geels, 643 N.E.2d 922, 925 (Ind.Ct.App.1994). | 2 | 2 |
In Re TWgreen2 sentences2019See In re T.W., 831 N.E.2d at 1246 (citations omitted). 2 We explained: Indiana Code § 31-35-2-6.5 does not require compliance with Indiana Trial Rule 4, which governs service of process and incorporates a jurisdictional component. . . . 2006Id. | 1 | 3 |
Tax Certificate Investments, Inc. v. Smethersgreen2 sentences2015Smethers, 714 N.E.2d at 133-134 (holding that the purchaser substantially complied with the notice requirements and due process requirements were satisfied where the purchaser sent notice by certified mail to the address indicated by the auditor’s records even though the owner had moved and failed to update her records at the auditor’s office). 2004Id. (relying upon prior version of Ind.Code § 6-1.1-25), The purchaser "was entitled to rely on the official property records in complying with the statutory notice requirement," and it was the owner's burden to update her address. | 1 | 2 |
Duchon v. Rossgreen2 sentences2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply- with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. 4 See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) (“Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant’s attorney fees.”); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that “a landlord must com 2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. [4] See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) ("Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant's attorney fees."); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that "a landlord must co | 1 | 2 |
Anthony J. Iemma v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. Successor by Merger with Bank One, N.A.green1 sentence2025They argue that Navarette does not claim “that her representative was deprived of the opportunity to comply with the statute,” “[r]ather, she states that the issue is that her attorney did not meet statutory deadlines,” and “[t]his is not the kind of deprivation that warrants equitable relief.” Id. at 15. [10] “A tax sale is purely a statutory creation, and material compliance with each step of the statute is required.” Iemma v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 992 N.E.2d 732, 738 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
John W. Schoettmer & Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright & South Central Community Action Program, Inc.green1 sentence2016Under the doctrine of substantial compliance, the failure to fully satisfy the precise notice requirements of the ITCA is excused as long as “the purpose of the notice requirement is satisfied.” Scho~ ettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 707 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Starks v. Village Green Apartmentsgreen2 sentences2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply- with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. 4 See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) (“Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant’s attorney fees.”); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that “a landlord must com 2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. [4] See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) ("Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant's attorney fees."); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that "a landlord must co | 1 | 1 |
Deckard Realty & Development v. Lykinsgreen2 sentences2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply- with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. 4 See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) (“Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant’s attorney fees.”); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that “a landlord must com 2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. [4] See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) ("Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant's attorney fees."); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that "a landlord must co | 1 | 1 |
Skiver v. Brighton Meadowsgreen2 sentences2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply- with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. 4 See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) (“Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant’s attorney fees.”); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that “a landlord must com 2008App.1992) ("A landlord can attempt to pursue a claim for `other damages' only if it returns the tenant's security deposit within 45 days or provides the statutory notice."); Skiver v. Brighton Meadows, 585 N.E.2d 1345, 1347 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that because the landlord "did not provide [the tenant] with a list of damages claimed *1240 under section 13, in this case the unpaid rent, [the landlord] may not now collect this amount" (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Lae v. Householdergreen2 sentences2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply- with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. 4 See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) (“Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant’s attorney fees.”); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that “a landlord must com 2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. [4] See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) ("Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant's attorney fees."); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that "a landlord must co | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. Davisgreen2 sentences2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply- with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. 4 See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) (“Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant’s attorney fees.”); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that “a landlord must com 2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. [4] See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) ("Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant's attorney fees."); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that "a landlord must co | 1 | 1 |
Durf v. Moltergreen2 sentences2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply- with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. 4 See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) (“Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant’s attorney fees.”); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that “a landlord must com 2008Therefore, unlike the majority, I conclude that if Klotz failed to comply with the statute requiring him to provide an itemized statement within forty-five days, he would be precluded from recovering other damages, including the unpaid rent and late payments. [4] See Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 484 (Ind.2003) ("Failure to refund and supply the itemized list results in a waiver of any claim for damages and exposes the landlord to liability for the tenant's attorney fees."); Starks v. Village Green Apartments, 854 N.E.2d 411, 417-18 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (recognizing that "a landlord must co | 1 | 1 |
Reeder Associates II v. Chicago Belle, Ltd.green1 sentence2005In re 2001 Hamilton County Tax Sale, 823 N.E.2d 745, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); see also Reeder, 778 N.E.2d at 835 ("Although a county auditor may go beyond the minimum requirements of due process and engage in a search of outside records, it may not do so in lieu of a search of its own records."). | 1 | 1 |
Lehman v. Davisgreen2 sentences2005In re 2001 Hamilton County Tax Sale, 823 N.E.2d 745, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); see also Reeder, 778 N.E.2d at 835 ("Although a county auditor may go beyond the minimum requirements of due process and engage in a search of outside records, it may not do so in lieu of a search of its own records."). 2005In re 2001 Hamilton County Tax Sale, 823 N.E.2d 745, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.2005); see also Reed-er, TIS N.E.2d at 835 ("Although a county auditor may go beyond the minimum requirements of due process and engage in a search of outside records, it may not do so in lieu of a search of its own records."). | 1 | 1 |
McGill v. Indiana Department of Correctiongreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., McGill v. Ind. Dep’t of Correction, 636 N.E.2d 199, 202 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (observing that, although the Tort Claims Act requires hand delivery or sending by registered or certified mail, notice filed by regular mail constitutes substantial compliance if it is received within the statutory time limit). | 1 | 1 |
Pinnacle Properties v. Saulkagreen1 sentence2000However, where the landlord fails to comply with the statutory notice requirement this “constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit.” I.C. § 32-7-5-15; Pinnacle Props. v. Saulka, 693 N.E.2d 101, 103-04 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. *303 We further note that “the Security Deposit statute applies only to security deposits” and that the statute “clearly and unambiguously preserves the right of the landlord ... to recover other damages to which [he or she] is entitled.” I.C. § 32-7-5-12(c) 5 ; Mi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Indianapolis v. Satz
green
2 sentences2005Satz, 268 Ind. at 584 , 377 N.E.2d at 625 . 2005Satz, 268 Ind. at 584 , 877 N.E.2d at 625. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Harris v. Delaware County Division, of Family & Children Services
green
2 sentences2002Clenna cites Harris v. Delaware County Div. of Family & Children Servs., 732 N.E.2d 248 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) for the proposition that he was entitled to service of process specifically for the termination hearing. 2002Clenna cites Harris v. Delaware County Div. of Family & Children Servs., 732 N.E.2d 248 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) for the proposition that he was entitled to service of process specifically for the termination hearing. | 2 | 2002–2002 |
In Re BJ
green
1 sentence2025Id. [38] In support of these arguments, Parents point to Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
1 sentence2025Id. [38] In support of these arguments, Parents point to Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
R.K. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
green
1 sentence2018Id. [16] In H.K. , this court considered on the merits whether DCS complied with the statutory notice requirement of I.C. § 34-35-2-6.5. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wind Dance Farm, Inc. v. Hughes Supply, Inc.
green
1 sentence2011Further, we note that we held in Wind Dance that "substantial compliance with a statutory notice requirement is sufficient when notice is timely received.” Wind Dance, 792 N.E.2d at 83 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Indiana State Highway Commission v. Morris
green
1 sentence1995Indiana State Highway Com'n. v. Morris (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 468, 471 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Dunn v. City of Indianapolis
green
1 sentence1988Geyer, supra; Galbreath, supra; Burggrabe, supra; Dunn, supra. These purposes, combined with that of requiring a claimant to announce his intention to assert a claim, as noted in Rosga, supra, are thus the recognized objectives of the statutory notice requirement. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Rosga v. City of Hammond
green
2 sentences1988Geyer, supra; Galbreath, supra; Burggrabe, supra; Dunn, supra. These purposes, combined with that of requiring a claimant to announce his intention to assert a claim, as noted in Rosga, supra, are thus the recognized objectives of the statutory notice requirement. 1988These purposes, combined with that of requiring a claimant to announce his intention to assert a claim, as noted in Rosga, supra, are thus the recognized objectives of the statutory notice requirement. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Burggrabe v. Board of Public Works
green
1 sentence1988Geyer, supra; Galbreath, supra; Burggrabe, supra; Dunn, supra. These purposes, combined with that of requiring a claimant to announce his intention to assert a claim, as noted in Rosga, supra, are thus the recognized objectives of the statutory notice requirement. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Fayette County Department of Public Welfare v. Health & Hospital Corp. of Marion County
neutral
2 sentences1983Lower also cites Fayette Co. Dept. of Public Welfare v. Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion Co. (1980), Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 919 for the proposition that where the welfare department is not prejudiced by the indigent person’s failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement, “it is unnecessary for this or any reviewing court to *887 determine whether such notice was ‘prompt’ as a matter of law.” 405 N.E.2d at 925 . 1983Lower also cites Fayette Co. Dept. of Public Welfare v. Health & Hospital Corporation of Marion Co. (1980), Ind.App., 405 N.E.2d 919 for the proposition that where the welfare department is not prejudiced by the indigent person’s failure to comply with a statutory notice requirement, “it is unnecessary for this or any reviewing court to *887 determine whether such notice was ‘prompt’ as a matter of law.” 405 N.E.2d at 925 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
United Telephone Co. of Indiana v. Public Service Commission
green
1 sentence1980We disagree that the PSC made its decision based upon its own investigation. “[T]he PSC’s orders must be based upon substantial evidence in the record and be specific enough to enable this court to intelligently review the PSC’s decision.” United Telephone Company of Indiana, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, (1980) Ind.App., 402 N.E.2d 1013 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Aaron v. City of Tipton
green
2 sentences1975The court in Aaron then examined the function of the notice statute, in a jurisdiction recognizing common law liability: “Our notice statutes do not purport to set up a condition precedent to the liability of the city, but merely establish a procedural step which was necessary to the remedy of bringing an action to enforce the liability.” 218 Ind. 227, 235-36 , 32 N.E.2d 88 . *192 We believe that Aaron properly defines this statutory notice requirement as a procedural precedent which must be accomplished before filing suit, but which is not an element of the cause of action. 1975The court in Aaron then examined the function of the notice statute, in a jurisdiction recognizing common law liability: “Our notice statutes do not purport to set up a condition precedent to the liability of the city, but merely establish a procedural step which was necessary to the remedy of bringing an action to enforce the liability.” 218 Ind. 227, 235-36 , 32 N.E.2d 88 . *192 We believe that Aaron properly defines this statutory notice requirement as a procedural precedent which must be accomplished before filing suit, but which is not an element of the cause of action. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.