134 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1911–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rzeszutek v. Beckgreen2 sentences2005Rzeszutek v. Beck, 649 N.E.2d 673, 676 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. 2001Rzeszutek v. Beck, 649 N.E.2d 673, 676 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). | 11 | 11 |
In Re Paternity of JCgreen2 sentences2008When an appellee fails to file a brief, "an appellant may prevail by establishing a prima facie case of error." In re Paternity of J.C., 819 N.E.2d 525, 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 2007When an appellee fails to file a brief, “an appellant may prevail by establishing a prima facie case of error.” In re Paternity of J.C., 819 N.E.2d 525, 527 (Ind.Ct.App.2004). | 6 | 6 |
Elrod v. Brooksgreen2 sentences2017Elrod v. Brooks, 910 N.E.2d 231, 233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 2012In such a case, “an appellant may prevail by establishing a prima facie case of error, i.e., error at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Elrod v. Brooks, 910 N.E.2d 231, 233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). | 5 | 5 |
Village of College Corner v. Town of West College Cornergreen2 sentences2013Village of College Corner v. Town of West College Corner, 766 N.E.2d 742, 745 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). 2007Village of College Corner v. Town of West College Corner, 766 N.E.2d 742, 745 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). | 4 | 4 |
Brower Corp. v. Brattaingreen2 sentences2009Brower Corp. v. Brattain, 792 N.E.2d 75, 77 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). 2004Brower Corp. v. Brattain, 792 N.E.2d 75, 77 (Ind.Ct.App.2003). | 4 | 4 |
Sand Creek Country Club, Ltd. v. CSO Architects, Inc.green2 sentences2008Sand Creek Country Club, Ltd. v. CSO Architects, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 872, 875-76 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). 2004Wife did not file a reply brief, "Where an appellant fails to file a response to a cross-appeal, the cross-appellant may prevail if its brief presents a prima facie case of error." Sand Creek Country Club, Ltd. v. CSO Architects, Inc., 582 N.E.2d 872, 875-76 (Ind.Ct.App.1991). | 4 | 4 |
Goins v. Riddlegreen2 sentences2018In re Riddle, 946 N.E.2d 61, 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). 2018In re Riddle , 946 N.E.2d 61 , 70 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). | 2 | 5 |
Wells v. Auberrygreen2 sentences1987See Wells v. Auberry, 429 N.E.2d at 683 ("[Als the imminence of irreparable harm is reduced, the prima facie case requirement expands to the test of probability of recovery on the merits."). 1987Given the uncertain applicability of the refund statute, and thus the potential for irreparable injury, and in view of the strong reasonable opportunity that the petitioners will prevail on the merits, the Court finds that the petitioners have shown irreparable injury may occur if the collection of the SHUF is not enjoined pendente lite, See Wells v. Auberry, 429 N.E.2d at 683 ("[Als the imminence of irreparable harm is reduced, the prima facie case requirement expands to the test of probability of recovery on the merits."). | 2 | 3 |
cluster 540852green2 sentences2018To establish a prima facie case of violation of a person’s equal protection rights, a plaintiff must show that “he or she is a member of a protected class, that he or she is otherwise similarly situated to members of the unprotected class, and that he or she was treated differently from members of the unprotected class.” Dickson v. Aaron, 667 N.E.2d 759, 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Sims v. Mulcahy, 902 F.2d 524, 538 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 897 (1990)), trans. denied. 2016To establish a prima facie case of violation of a person’s equal protection rights, a plaintiff must show “he or she is a member of a protected class, that he or she is otherwise similarly situated to members of the unprotected class, and that he or she was treated differently from members of the unprotected class.” Dickson v. Aaron, 667 N.E.2d 759, 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Sims v. Mulcahy, 902 F.2d 524, 538 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 897 (1990)), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Lewis v. Rex Metal Craft, Inc.green2 sentences2017Lewis v. Rex Metal Craft, Inc., 831 N.E.2d 812, 816 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). 2005Lewis v. Rex Metal Craft, Inc., 831 N.E.2d 812, 816 (Ind.Ct.App.2005). | 2 | 2 |
Gibson v. Handgreen2 sentences2013"When an appellee does not submit a brief, an appellant may prevail by making a prima facie case of error." Gibson v. Hand, 756 N.E.2d 544, 545 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). 2006Gibson v. Hand, 756 N.E.2d 544, 545 (Ind.Ct.App.2001). | 2 | 2 |
Kostuck v. VINCENT D.green2 sentences2001Kostuck v. Brown, 684 N.E.2d 573, 574 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). 2001Kostuck v. Brown, 684 N.E.2d 573, 574 (Ind.Ct.App.1997). | 2 | 2 |
Sills v. Irelangreen2 sentences2000Sills v. Irelan, 663 N.E.2d 1210, 1213 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). 1997Sills v. Irelan, 663 N.E.2d 1210, 1213 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). | 2 | 2 |
McBride v. Coxgreen2 sentences2014See id. 2011Id. | 1 | 4 |
Stanrail Corp. v. Review Board of the Department of Workforce Developmentgreen2 sentences2007To establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under Indiana Code section 22-4-15-1(d)(2), it is necessary for the employer to show that the claimant: (1) knowingly violated; (2) a reasonable; and (3) uniformly enforced rule. [6] Stanrail Corp., 735 N.E.2d at 1203 . 2007To establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under Indiana Code section 22-4-15-1(d)(2), it is necessary for the employer to show that the claimant: (1) knowingly violated; (2) a reasonable; and (3) uniformly enforced rule. 6 Stanrail Corp., 735 N.E.2d at 1203 . | 1 | 3 |
Marriage of Van Wieren v. Van Wierengreen2 sentences2017Therefore, “the judgment may be reversed if the appellant’s brief presents a prima facie case of error.” Van Wieren v. Van Wieren, 858 N.E.2d 216, 221 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). 2015Thus, we may reverse the trial court’s judgment if Father’s brief “presents a prima facie case of error.” Id. | 1 | 2 |
Sims v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Sims v. State, 771 N.E.2d 734 , 737 n.1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied. 2011Sims v. State, 771 N.E.2d 734 , 736 n. 1 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied. | 1 | 2 |
McClain v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Developmentgreen2 sentences2003"In order to establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under [Indiana Code Section] 22-4-15-1(d)(2), the employer must demonstrate that the employee knowingly violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule." McClain v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1318 (Ind.1998). "[AJn employer's asserted work rule must be reduced to writing and introduced into evidence in order for us to fairly and reasonably evaluate a determination that an employee was justly discharged for a knowing violation of that rule. 2003"In order to establish a prima facie case for violation of an employer rule under [Indiana Code Section] XX-X-XX-X(d)(2), the employer must demonstrate that the employee knowingly violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule." McClain v. Indiana Dep't of Workforce Dev., 693 N.E.2d 1314, 1318 (Ind.1998). "[A]n employer's asserted work rule must be reduced to writing and introduced into evidence in order for us to fairly and reasonably evaluate a determination that an employee was justly discharged for a knowing violation of that rule. | 1 | 2 |
Blunt-Keene v. Stategreen2 sentences2002Id. 2002See Blunt-Keene v. State, 708 N.E.2d 17, 19 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). | 1 | 2 |
| Overstreet v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Patrick Austin v. State of Indianagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rosenbaum v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dennis and Jeremy Cochran v. Zeroffos Hoffman and John Dyegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Marriage of McMahon v. McMahongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ford v. Fordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Benefield v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Paternity of SJJgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fanggreen | 1 | 1 |
| Town and Country Ford, Inc. v. Buschgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Watterson v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Employment & Training Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Savoree v. Industrial Contracting & Erecting, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| National Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Gingrichgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Peabody Coal Co. v. Ralstongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Medical Specialists, Inc. v. Sleweongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Indiana State Employees Association, Inc. v. Negleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hamiter v. Torrence
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2015Id. | 12 | 2004–2016 |
Mateyko v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2013Id. | 8 | 2009–2016 |
Bovie v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2015Id. | 6 | 2009–2016 |
Mikel v. Johnston
neutral
2 sentences2013Mikel v. Johnston, 907 N.E.2d 547 , 551 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2009). 2013Mikel v. Johnston, 907 N.E.2d 547 , 551 n.3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). | 4 | 2012–2013 |
McKinney v. McKinney
green
2 sentences2016Id. 2015Id. | 3 | 2006–2016 |
Dickson v. Aaron
green
2 sentences2018To establish a prima facie case of violation of a person’s equal protection rights, a plaintiff must show that “he or she is a member of a protected class, that he or she is otherwise similarly situated to members of the unprotected class, and that he or she was treated differently from members of the unprotected class.” Dickson v. Aaron, 667 N.E.2d 759, 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Sims v. Mulcahy, 902 F.2d 524, 538 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 897 (1990)), trans. denied. 2016To establish a prima facie case of violation of a person’s equal protection rights, a plaintiff must show “he or she is a member of a protected class, that he or she is otherwise similarly situated to members of the unprotected class, and that he or she was treated differently from members of the unprotected class.” Dickson v. Aaron, 667 N.E.2d 759, 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Sims v. Mulcahy, 902 F.2d 524, 538 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 897 (1990)), trans. denied. | 2 | 2016–2018 |
San Francisco Fire Fighters Local 798 v. City & County of San Francisco
green
2 sentences2018To establish a prima facie case of violation of a person’s equal protection rights, a plaintiff must show that “he or she is a member of a protected class, that he or she is otherwise similarly situated to members of the unprotected class, and that he or she was treated differently from members of the unprotected class.” Dickson v. Aaron, 667 N.E.2d 759, 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Sims v. Mulcahy, 902 F.2d 524, 538 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 897 (1990)), trans. denied. 2016To establish a prima facie case of violation of a person’s equal protection rights, a plaintiff must show “he or she is a member of a protected class, that he or she is otherwise similarly situated to members of the unprotected class, and that he or she was treated differently from members of the unprotected class.” Dickson v. Aaron, 667 N.E.2d 759, 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (quoting Sims v. Mulcahy, 902 F.2d 524, 538 (7th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 897 (1990)), trans. denied. | 2 | 2016–2018 |
Farm Credit Services of Mid America v. Estate of Decker
green
2 sentences1995Farm Credit Services v. Estate of Decker (1993), Ind. App., 624 N.E.2d 491, 493 . 1995Farm Credit Services v. Estate of Decker (1998), Ind.App., 624 N.E.2d 491, 498 . | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Watkins v. Alvey
green
2 sentences1993Watkins v. Alvey (1990), Ind.App., 549 N.E.2d 74 . 1993Watkins v. Alvey (1990), Ind. App., 549 N.E.2d 74 . | 2 | 1992–1993 |
| Newton D/B/a, Etc. v. Hunt D/B/a, Etc. neutral | 2 | 1963–1963 |
Sunn v. Martin
green
2 sentences1963Wertzberger, Admr., etc. v. Herd et al. (1957), 128 Ind. App. 85 , 146 N. E. 2d 115 ; Newton d/b/a, etc. v. Hunt d/b/a, etc. (1957), 127 Ind. App. 456 , 142 N. E. 2d 643 ; Sunn v. Martin (1959), 130 Ind. App. 29 , 161 N. E. 2d 487 ; Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County v. Weisfeld, D. 1963Wertzberger, Admr., etc. v. Herd et al. (1957), 128 Ind. App. 85 , 146 N. E. 2d 115 ; Newton d/b/a, etc. v. Hunt d/b/a, etc. (1957), 127 Ind. App. 456 , 142 N. E. 2d 643 ; Sunn v. Martin (1959), 130 Ind. App. 29 , 161 N. E. 2d 487 ; Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County v. Weisfeld, D. | 2 | 1963–1963 |
Wertzberger, Admr., Etc. v. Herd
neutral
2 sentences1963Wertzberger, Admr., etc. v. Herd et al. (1957), 128 Ind. App. 85 , 146 N. E. 2d 115 ; Newton d/b/a, etc. v. Hunt d/b/a, etc. (1957), 127 Ind. App. 456 , 142 N. E. 2d 643 ; Sunn v. Martin (1959), 130 Ind. App. 29 , 161 N. E. 2d 487 ; Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County v. Weisfeld, D. 1963Wertzberger, Admr., etc. v. Herd d/b/a, etc. (1957), 128 Ind. App. 85 , 146 N. E. 2d 115 ; Newton d/b/a, etc. v. Hunt d/b/a, etc. (1957), 127 Ind. App. 456 , 142 N. E. 2d 643 ; Sunn v. Martin (1959), 130 Ind. App. 29 , 161 N. E. 2d 487 ; Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County v. Weisfeld, D.D.S. (1963), 134 Ind. App. 428 , 189 N. E. 2d 109 ; Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of New Albany, Indiana v. Jack Jacobs, et al. (1963), #19761, 134 Ind. App. 665 , 191 N. E. 2d 45 ; 2 West’s Indiana Law Encyclopedia, Appeals, §394, p. 275. | 2 | 1963–1963 |
| Fifth Third Bank v. PNC Bank green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| S.W. Ex Rel. Wesolowski v. Kurtic green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Dominiack Mechanical, Inc. v. Dunbar green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Batson v. Kentucky green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Santana v. Santana green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Hehr v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Morris v. City of Evansville green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Jack K. MOORE, Appellee, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NC, Appellant, and Charlotte Police Department, Defendant green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| K N Energy, Inc. v. Great Western Sugar Co. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. N. A. A. C. P. Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Frank v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Muscatatuck State School v. Derringer green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| YOUNG v. Schreiner neutral | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Meadows v. Hickman green | 1 | 1970–1970 |
| METROPOLITAN BD. OF ZONING APP. v. Weisfeld neutral | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Board of Zoning Appeals v. Jacobs neutral | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Bindbeutal v. Street Railway Co. green | 1 | 1911–1911 |
| Tipton v. Schuler neutral | 1 | 1911–1911 |
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.