22 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephartgreen2 sentences2014Standard of Review This Court "review[s] de novo the trial court's grant or denial of a motion based on Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6)." Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120, 1122 (Ind.2010). 2014Standard of Review This Court “review[s] de novo the trial court’s grant or denial of a motion based on Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6).” Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120, 1122 (Ind.2010). | 3 | 3 |
Leo MacHine & Tool, Inc. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.green2 sentences2014Here, the School District cites Leo Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 936 N.E.2d 855, 862 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) aff'd on reh'g, 940 N.E.2d 384 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (designated evidence that a different course of action would have been better does not alter the immunity analysis as long as the decision being challenged was in fact "undertaken after a conscious and informed risk/benefit analysis”). . 2014In his 8 Here, the School District cites Leo Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 936 N.E.2d 855, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) aff’d on reh’g, 940 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (designated evidence that a different course of action would have been better does not alter the immunity analysis as long as the decision being challenged was in fact “undertaken after a conscious and informed risk/benefit analysis”). 14 complaint, the plaintiff argued that the school district failed to spend all of the money it had available for security, that it did not have an adequate policy for brea | 2 | 2 |
Peavler v. BD. OF COM'RS MONROE CTY.green2 sentences2015Prior to our supreme court’s decision in Pearler v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County, 528 N.E.2d 40, 46 (Ind.1988), this court distinguished between “ministerial” and “discretionary” acts to determine if certain conduct was included within the immunity exception. 2015Id. at 235-36 (some citations and internal quotations omitted). [7] Prior to our supreme court’s decision in Peavler v. Board of Commissioners of Monroe County, 528 N.E.2d 40, 46 (Ind. 1988), this court distinguished between “ministerial” and “discretionary” acts to determine if certain conduct was included within the immunity exception. | 1 | 2 |
Farley v. Hammond Sanitary Districtgreen1 sentence2016Farley, 956 N.E.2d at 83 (emphasis added). [25] Homeowners apparently believe that they were entitled to partial summary judgment on the immunity defense because the Boone County defendants did not show the absence of a factual dispute. | 1 | 1 |
Giles v. Brown County ex rel. Board of Commissionersgreen2 sentences2007Giles, 839 N.E.2d at 1266 (Sharpnack, J., dissenting) ( citing Burns v. City of Terre Haute, 744 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, 761 N.E.2d 412 (Ind.2001) (table); Barnes v. Antich, 700 N.E.2d 262 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied, 714 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1999) (table)). 2007Giles, 839 N.E.2d at 1266 (Sharpnack, J., dissenting) (citing Burns v. City of Terre Haute, 744 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, 761 N.E.2d 412 (Ind.2001) (table); Barnes v. Antich, 700 N.E.2d 262 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied, 714 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1999) (table)). | 1 | 1 |
Franklin Fire Insurance v. Nollgreen2 sentences2002Id. at 951. 2002Id. at 951. | 1 | 1 |
Meier v. Pearlmangreen2 sentences2002Mei- er set forth the immunity rule that "[alb-sent fraud, collusion, malicious or tortious conduct on the part of an attorney, the rule is equally well established that no liability to third parties arises from the attorney's conduct as an attorney for another." Id. at 40 (citing McDonald v. Stewart, 289 Minn. 35 , 182 N.W.2d 437 (1970)). 2002Meier set forth the immunity rule that "[a]bsent fraud, collusion, malicious or tortious conduct on the part of an attorney, the rule is equally well established that no liability to third parties arises from the attorney's conduct as an attorney for another." Id. at 40 ( citing McDonald v. Stewart, 289 Minn. 35 , 182 N.W.2d 437 (1970)). | 1 | 1 |
Estate of Pickens v. Pickensgreen2 sentences1984The Pickens court quoted the Wrongful Death Act: “Action for wrongful death — When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the former may maintain an action therefore against the latter, if the former might have maintained an action had he or she, as the case may be, lived, against the latter for an injury for the same act or omission. 255 Ind. at 125 , 263 N.E.2d at 155 (Emphasis supplied.) Despite the clarity of the language of the statute, the court stated: “From a literal reading of the statute it would appear that appellant wou 1984The Pickens court quoted the Wrongful Death Act: “Action for wrongful death — When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the former may maintain an action therefore against the latter, if the former might have maintained an action had he or she, as the case may be, lived, against the latter for an injury for the same act or omission. 255 Ind. at 125 , 263 N.E.2d at 155 (Emphasis supplied.) Despite the clarity of the language of the statute, the court stated: “From a literal reading of the statute it would appear that appellant wou | 1 | 1 |
Crater v. Cratergreen2 sentences1982See, Crater v. Crater (1889), 118 Ind. 521 , 21 N.E. 290 . 1982See, Crater v. Crater (1889), 118 Ind. 521 , 21 N.E. 290 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Leo MacHine & Tool, Inc. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
neutral
2 sentences2014Here, the School District cites Leo Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 936 N.E.2d 855, 862 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) aff'd on reh'g, 940 N.E.2d 384 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (designated evidence that a different course of action would have been better does not alter the immunity analysis as long as the decision being challenged was in fact "undertaken after a conscious and informed risk/benefit analysis”). . 2014In his 8 Here, the School District cites Leo Mach. & Tool, Inc. v. Poe Volunteer Fire Dep’t, Inc., 936 N.E.2d 855, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) aff’d on reh’g, 940 N.E.2d 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (designated evidence that a different course of action would have been better does not alter the immunity analysis as long as the decision being challenged was in fact “undertaken after a conscious and informed risk/benefit analysis”). 14 complaint, the plaintiff argued that the school district failed to spend all of the money it had available for security, that it did not have an adequate policy for brea | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Wsk v. Mhsb
green
1 sentence2015In addition, the immunity analysis under the Indiana Peer Review Act, I.C. § 34-30-15-1 to 34-30-15-23 is essentially the same as that under the HCQIA. [W.S.K., 922 N.E.2d at 690 ]. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Barnes v. Antich
green
2 sentences2007Giles, 839 N.E.2d at 1266 (Sharpnack, J., dissenting) ( citing Burns v. City of Terre Haute, 744 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, 761 N.E.2d 412 (Ind.2001) (table); Barnes v. Antich, 700 N.E.2d 262 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied, 714 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1999) (table)). 2007Giles, 839 N.E.2d at 1266 (Sharpnack, J., dissenting) (citing Burns v. City of Terre Haute, 744 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, 761 N.E.2d 412 (Ind.2001) (table); Barnes v. Antich, 700 N.E.2d 262 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied, 714 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1999) (table)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Burns v. City of Terre Haute
green
2 sentences2007Giles, 839 N.E.2d at 1266 (Sharpnack, J., dissenting) ( citing Burns v. City of Terre Haute, 744 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, 761 N.E.2d 412 (Ind.2001) (table); Barnes v. Antich, 700 N.E.2d 262 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied, 714 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1999) (table)). 2007Giles, 839 N.E.2d at 1266 (Sharpnack, J., dissenting) (citing Burns v. City of Terre Haute, 744 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied, 761 N.E.2d 412 (Ind.2001) (table); Barnes v. Antich, 700 N.E.2d 262 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied, 714 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1999) (table)). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
McDonald v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2002Mei- er set forth the immunity rule that "[alb-sent fraud, collusion, malicious or tortious conduct on the part of an attorney, the rule is equally well established that no liability to third parties arises from the attorney's conduct as an attorney for another." Id. at 40 (citing McDonald v. Stewart, 289 Minn. 35 , 182 N.W.2d 437 (1970)). 2002Mei- er set forth the immunity rule that "[alb-sent fraud, collusion, malicious or tortious conduct on the part of an attorney, the rule is equally well established that no liability to third parties arises from the attorney's conduct as an attorney for another." Id. at 40 (citing McDonald v. Stewart, 289 Minn. 35 , 182 N.W.2d 437 (1970)). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
M'culloch v. State of Maryland
green
2 sentences2000Farm Credit Serv. of Mid-America v. Department of State Revenue, 705 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999). 3 Early Tax Immunity Doctrine The doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity derives from M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), the landmark case holding that the State of Maryland could not impose a tax on the Bank of the United States. 2000Farm Credit Serv. of Mid-America v. Department of State Revenue, 705 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999). 3 Early Tax Immunity Doctrine The doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity derives from M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), the landmark case holding that the State of Maryland could not impose a tax on the Bank of the United States. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Farm Credit Services of Mid-America v. Department of State Revenue
green
2 sentences2000Farm Credit Serv. of Mid-America v. Department of State Revenue, 705 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999). 3 Early Tax Immunity Doctrine The doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity derives from M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), the landmark case holding that the State of Maryland could not impose a tax on the Bank of the United States. 2000Farm Credit Serv. of Mid-America v. Department of State Revenue, 705 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999). [3] Early Tax Immunity Doctrine The doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity derives from M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 , 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), the landmark case holding that the State of Maryland could not impose a tax on the Bank of the United States. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Aubrey v. State
green
1 sentence1996Id. at 694, 310 N.E.2d at 557 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Simpson's Food Fair, Inc. v. City of Evansville
green
2 sentences1994Indeed, in a discussion about exceptions to the governmental doctrine where a private duty exists, Judge Sullivan stated: "The presence of the amorphous and ill-defined duty owed by government to the public as a predominating factor which insulates government from tort responsibility is giving way to consideration of a more fundamental duty owed to private individuals." Simpson's Food Fair, 149 Ind.App. at 391 , 272 N.E.2d at 873-84 . 1994Indeed, in a discussion about exceptions to the governmental doctrine where a private duty exists, Judge Sullivan stated: "The presence of the amorphous and ill-defined duty owed by government to the public as a predominating factor which insulates government from tort responsibility is giving way to consideration of a more fundamental duty owed to private individuals." Simpson's Food Fair, 149 Ind.App. at 391 , 272 N.E.2d at 873-84 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Buffalo v. Buffalo
green
1 sentence1990As noted in By/ falo the original purpose of the parent-child immunity doctrine was to promote family harmony and where "[the domestic peace and tranquility of the family has already been broken" by divorce "[njlo logical reason grounded in public policy or common sense can be advanced for continued imposition of the immunity rule in favor of a noncustodial parent." Buffalo, 441 N.E.2d 711, 714 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Brinkman v. City of Indianapolis
green
1 sentence1971After careful consideration we are of the opinion that the doctrine of sovereign immunity has no proper place in the administration of a municipal corporation." 231 N.E.2d 169, 172 . | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Henneger v. Lomas
green
2 sentences1970Perhaps the first case to apply the immunity doctrine in a personal tort action was that of Henneger v. Lomas (1896), 145 Ind. 287 , 44 N. E. 462 . 1970Perhaps the first case to apply the immunity doctrine in a personal tort action was that of Henneger v. Lomas (1896), 145 Ind. 287 , 44 N. E. 462 . | 1 | 1970–1970 |
President & Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes
green
1 sentence1968Since the decision by Judge Rutledge in President and Directors of Georgetown College v. Hughes, supra, the weight of authority has shifted sides and it is the immunity rule which is supported by the fewer jurisdictions. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Volk v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1964See: Volk v. City of New York (1940), 284 N. Y. 279 , 30 N. E. 2d 596 ; Holtfoth v. Rochester Gen. 1964See: Volk v. City of New York (1940), 284 N. Y. 279 , 30 N. E. 2d 596 ; Holtfoth v. Rochester Gen. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.