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.
27 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Town of Montezuma v. Downsgreen2 sentences2019Co. v. Douglas, 808 N.E.2d 690, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied (citing Town of Montezuma v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 108, 112 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied). 2009“An unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty dictated by a statute is negligence per se.” Town of Montezuma v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 108, 112 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). | 7 | 8 |
Plesha v. Edmonds Ex Rel. Edmondsgreen2 sentences2012Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied (2000). 2011Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (stating that the unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty prescribed by statute constitutes negligence per se if the statute is intended to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included and to protect against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation), trans. denied. | 3 | 4 |
French v. Bristol-Myers Co.green2 sentences1999French v. Bristol Myers Co., 574 N.E.2d 940, 943 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied. 1995French v. Bristol Myers Corp. (1991), Ind.App., 574 N.E.2d 940, 943 , trans. denied. | 2 | 3 |
American United Life Insurance Co. v. Douglasgreen1 sentence2019Co. v. Douglas, 808 N.E.2d 690, 704 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), trans. denied (citing Town of Montezuma v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 108, 112 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied). | 1 | 1 |
Indian Trucking v. Harbergreen1 sentence2017In fact, this court has rejected such a rigid application, explaining that “[u]nder Indiana law, an unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty dictated by statute is negligence per se.” Indian Trucking v. Harber, 752 N.E.2d 168, 172 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
City of Fort Wayne v. Katie Parrishgreen1 sentence2016See City of Fort Wayne v. Parrish, 32 N.E.3d 275, 277 (Ind.Ct.App.2015), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Kuchaesgreen1 sentence2015Price v. Kuchaes, 950 N.E.2d 1218, 1234 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (citing Plesha v. Edmonds ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Lachenman v. Sticegreen1 sentence2006See Lachenman, v. Stice, 838 N.E.2d 451, 461 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied (“The unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty prescribed by a statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the statute or ordinance is intended to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included and the statute or ordinance is intended to protect against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation.”). | 1 | 1 |
Lever Bros. Co. v. Langdocgreen1 sentence2000Co. v. Langdoc, 655 N.E.2d 577, 580 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Inland Steel v. Pequignotgreen2 sentences1997Inland Steel v. Pequignot, 608 N.E.2d 1378, 1383 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied. 1997Inland Steel v. Pequignot, 608 N.E.2d 1378, 1383 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hodge v. Nor-Cen, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003In noting that the unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty prescribed by statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se, the court observed that "[the same is not true of an administrative regulation, the violation of which has been held to be only evidence of negligence." Id. at 1160 n. 3. 2003Hodge, 527 N.E.2d at 1160 . | 2 | 1990–2003 |
Funston v. School Town of Munster
green
1 sentence2018Id. [18] Negligence per se is the unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty prescribed by statute where the statute is intended to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included and to protect against the type of harm which has occurred as a result of the violation. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Richard Brown and Janet Brown v. City of Valparaiso, Indiana
green
2 sentences2018However, it should be noted that "not every statute creates an implied right of action, and a claim of negligence per se depends on a determination of legislative intent to make a defendant liable in tort." Id. at 660 . 2018Accordingly, the Trust contends that the trial court erred in concluding otherwise. [16] "[N]egligence per se is the unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty prescribed by statute." Brown v. City of Valparaiso , 67 N.E.3d 652 , 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Rubin v. Johnson
green
1 sentence1991Rubin v. Johnson (1990), Ind.App., 550 N.E.2d 324 , trans. denied. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Ray v. Goldsmith
green
2 sentences1988Finally, the unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty prescribed by statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the statute is intended to protect the class of persons in which plaintiff is included and against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation. 3 Ray v. Goldsmith (1980), Ind.App., 400 N.E.2d 176 . 1988Finally, the unexcused or unjustified violation of a duty prescribed by statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the statute is intended to protect the class of persons in which plaintiff is included and against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation. [3] Ray v. Goldsmith (1980), Ind. App., 400 N.E.2d 176 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.