22 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barton-Malow Co., Inc. v. Wilburngreen2 sentences2010See Barton-Malow Co. v. Wilburn, 547 N.E.2d at 1126 . 2010See Barton-Malow Co. v. Wilburn, 547 N.E.2d at 1126 . | 2 | 2 |
McCarty v. Sandersgreen2 sentences2008Although this court has held that if there is more than one actual victim of the malpractice, each injured person can obtain excess damages, see McCarty v. Sanders, 805 N.E.2d 894, 899-900 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), trans. denied, the nature of the injury alleged by the [plaintiffs] in light of the Act’s definition of a derivative claim limits the recovery here. 2007Given that clear statement of the law, which we discuss further in this opinion, infra, we must hold that Lóri and Darrin’s negligent infliction of emotional *8 distress claims constitute “derivative claims” as defined in Indiana Code section 34-18-2-22. 12 As such, there must be a “patient” from whom their claims can derive. 13 Although this court has held that if there is more than one actual victim of the malpractice, éach injured person can obtain excess damages, see McCarty v. Sanders, 805 N.E.2d 894, 899-900 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004), trans. denied, the nature of the injury alleged by the Winkl | 2 | 2 |
Goleski v. Fritzgreen2 sentences2003Id. at 891. 2003Id. at 891 . | 2 | 2 |
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Wolfegreen2 sentences2018Fund v. Wolfe, 735 N.E.2d 1187, 1193 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (holding parents with a derivative claim are not entitled to a separate damages cap; rather, their claims are included within the patient’s claim), trans. denied. 2007App.2000), trans. denied, this court addressed an issue related to that presented in this case: “whether a parent who has a derivative claim, based on loss of services, constitutes a ‘patient’ under Indiana Code Section 34-18-2-22 and is therefore entitled to a separate statutory damages cap under the Act.” Id. at 1189 . | 1 | 3 |
INS Investigations Bureau, Inc. v. Leegreen1 sentence2023“The doctrine merely expresses the practice of courts Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2783 | December 21, 2023 Page 11 of 17 generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided and is based upon the sound policy that when an issue is once litigated and decided, that should be the end of the matter.” INS Investigations Bureau, Inc. v. Lee, 784 N.E.2d 566, 574 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [17] In Lake Imaging, our supreme court, after analyzing the applicability of the MMA to Franciscan’s indemnification claim, decided that because Franciscan’s claim was not a claim for bodily injury or de | 1 | 1 |
Barth v. Barthgreen2 sentences2017See Barth, 659 N.E.2d at 562 . 2017See Barth, 659 N.E.2d at 562 . | 1 | 1 |
Antonio Hughley v. State of Indiana, The Consolidated City of Indianapolis/Marion County, and The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Departmentgreen1 sentence2014See Hughley, 15 N.E.3d at 1003 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Citigroup Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigationgreen1 sentence2010In re Citigroup Inc. Sholder Derivative Litig., 964 A.2d 106, 124-25 (Del.Ch.2009). - Thus, the District Court properly concluded that in assessing the futility of a demand, Indiana law determines whether a director is "disinterested" by asking whether a derivative claim poses a significant risk of personal liability for the director-the Rales standard. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Eldridgegreen1 sentence2007Id. at 36. | 1 | 1 |
Community Hospital of Anderson v. McKnightgreen2 sentences1999See McKnight, 493 N.E.2d 775 (Ind.1986). 1999See McKnight, 493 N.E.2d 775 (Ind.1986). | 1 | 1 |
County of Sauk v. Tragergreen2 sentences1986Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 278 (1983); see, e.g., County of Sauk v. Trager (1984), 118 Wis.2d 204 , 346 N.W.2d 756 (court recognized exception to general rule that defense to enforcement of administrative decision is waived by failure to challenge action directly). 1986Public Administrative Law and Procedure § 278 (1983); see, e.g., County of Sauk v. Trager (1984), 118 Wis.2d 204 , 346 N.W.2d 756 (court recognized exception to general rule that defense to enforcement of administrative decision is waived by failure to challenge action directly). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hansen v. Board of Trustees for Hamilton Southeastern School Corp.
green
2 sentences2010These cases illustrate that Indiana courts have treated derivative and direct claims differently and that the courts do not give a derivative claim-holder the benefit of any disability provision. 522 F.Supp.2d at 1105 . 2010These cases illustrate that Indiana courts have treated derivative and direct claims differently and that the courts do not give a derivative claim-holder the benefit of any disability provision. 522 F.Supp.2d at 1105 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Patrick
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Purcell v. Southern Hills Investments, LLC
green
2 sentences2018The Court also stated that "[b]ecause [the plaintiff was] asserting a direct claim addressing a harm in its own name and not a derivative claim of corporate harm in the name of [a limited liability company] under the guise of a direct claim, we do not need to investigate whether the Barth exception is applicable." Id. [38] Based upon the record, including that Alisa has been the majority member of BioConvergence, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to find that Julie's claim regarding excessive payments was frivolous based on the idea that she may have be 2018BioConvergence and Alisa argue that this finding is clearly erroneous because "Alisa designated evidence of [Julie's] repeated admission that she did not assert a derivative claim but asserted only an individual claim for damages." Appellants' Brief at 33 (citing Appellants' Appendix Volume 2 at 68, 73, 240). 7 They cite Purcell v. Southern Hills Investments, LLC , 847 N.E.2d 991 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), for the idea that a court in such a case does not consider the Barth exception. [35] Julie alleges that owners of closely-held companies are not always required to bring claims of harm to the com | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Board of Com'rs of Cass County v. Nevitt
green
1 sentence2014Analysis Again, a claim of loss of consortium is a derivative claim and “absent actionable injury to one spouse, the other spouse cannot recover for loss of consortium.” Nevitt, 448 N.E.2d at 341 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Rales v. Blasband Ex Rel. Easco Hand Tools, Inc.
red
1 sentence2010Id. at 986 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Barth v. Barth
green
1 sentence2002In arriving at this result, we set forth our supreme court's announcement of the rule for determining when a shareholder of a closely-held corporation may raise a derivative claim in a direct action rather than a derivative action: In the case of a closely held corporation, the court in its discretion may treat an action raising derivative claims as a direct action, exempt it from those restrictions and defenses applicable only to derivative actions, and order an individual recovery, if it finds that to do so will not (i) unfairly expose the corporation or the defendants to a multiplicity of a | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Robert Myers and Steven R. Myers v. County of Lake, Indiana
green
1 sentence1995In Myers v. County of Lake, Ind. 30 F.3d 847 , cert. denied, (7th Cir.1994), a juvenile attempted suicide while in the custody of Lake County, Indiana at the County's juvenile detention center. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Koehn v. Devereaux
green
1 sentence1988The fireman's rule "provides that professionals, whose occupations by nature expose them to particular risks, may not hold another negligent for creating the situation to which they respond in their professional capacity." Koehn v. Devereaux (1986), Ind.App., 495 N.E.2d 211, 215 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
McNall v. Farmers Insurance Group
green
1 sentence1981Based upon the Court of Appeals’ review of all the evidence, Id. at 526 , it is possible that the jury will return a verdict against David McNall. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Wallace v. Feehan
green
2 sentences1979In this vein, our Supreme Court in Wallace, et al. v. Feehan, (1934) 206 Ind. 522 , 190 N.E. 438 , declared that an officer enjoys only a conditional privilege when performing a ministerial, as opposed to a discretionary, function. 1979In this vein, our Supreme Court in Wallace, et al. v. Feehan, (1934) 206 Ind. 522 , 190 N.E. 438 , declared that an officer enjoys only a conditional privilege when performing a ministerial, as opposed to a discretionary, function. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.