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.
19 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Schloss v. City of Indianapolisgreen2 sentences2014“The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s power.” Schloss v. City of Indianapolis, 553 N.E.2d 1204, 1206 (Ind.1990), reh’g denied. 2011Midwest argues that the trial court improperly granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings because Midwest does have standing to pursue its claims. “ ‘The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s *903 power.’ ” Nat’l Wine & Spirits Corp. v. Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n, 945 N.E.2d 182, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Hauer v. BRDD of Ind., Inc., 654 N.E.2d 816, 317 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied (1996)), trans. dismissed. “ ‘The standing requirement is a limit on the court’s jurisdiction which restrains the judici | 4 | 7 |
Shourek v. Stirlinggreen2 sentences2000Shourek v. Stirling, 621 N.E.2d 1107, 1109 (Ind.1993). 1997Shourek v. Stirling, 621 N.E.2d 1107, 1109 (Ind.1993). | 2 | 2 |
Barnette v. US Architects, LLPgreen2 sentences2018Further, as a matter of jurisprudence, "we do not decide cases upon constitutional grounds when they can be decided upon other grounds." Superior Const. Co. v. Carr , 564 N.E.2d 281 , 284 (Ind. 1990). [15] " 'The doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the Court's power.' " Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ. v. Eisenstein , 87 N.E.3d 481 , 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Barnette v. U.S. Architects, LLP , 15 N.E.3d 1 , 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), reh'g denied ). " 'The standing requirement restrains the judiciary to resolving only those cases an 2018Further, as a matter of jurisprudence, "we do not decide cases upon constitutional grounds when they can be decided upon other grounds." Superior Const. Co. v. Carr , 564 N.E.2d 281 , 284 (Ind. 1990). [15] " 'The doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the Court's power.' " Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ. v. Eisenstein , 87 N.E.3d 481 , 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Barnette v. U.S. Architects, LLP , 15 N.E.3d 1 , 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), reh'g denied ). " 'The standing requirement restrains the judiciary to resolving only those cases an | 1 | 2 |
National Wine & Spirits Corp. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commissiongreen2 sentences2017“The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s power.” Nat’l Wine & Spirits Corp., 945 N.E.2d at 184 . 2011Midwest argues that the trial court improperly granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings because Midwest does have standing to pursue its claims. “ ‘The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s *903 power.’ ” Nat’l Wine & Spirits Corp. v. Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n, 945 N.E.2d 182, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Hauer v. BRDD of Ind., Inc., 654 N.E.2d 816, 317 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied (1996)), trans. dismissed. “ ‘The standing requirement is a limit on the court’s jurisdiction which restrains the judici | 1 | 2 |
Hauer v. BRDD of Indiana, Inc.green2 sentences2011“The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining pai'ty is the proper person to invoke the court’s power.” Hauer v. BRDD of Indiana, Inc., 654 N.E.2d 316, 317 (Ind.Ct.App.1995). 1999The trial court having determined that such condition had not been met, it rightfully concluded that appellant’s action should be dismissed for lack of a legally sufficient claim. 7 Appellant contends that Caterpillar lacked standing to challenge the status of Roger’s estate, because Caterpillar had “no rightful expectation or right to the protection of any statutory or procedural estate safeguard set up to protect heirs of a deceased.” Appellant’s Brief at 8. 8 “The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s power.” Hauer | 1 | 2 |
Pence v. Stategreen2 sentences2005Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind.1995). 1999“Standing is similar to, though not identical with, the real party in interest requirement of [Indiana] Trial Rule 17.” Pence v. State (1995) Ind., 652 N.E.2d 486, 487 , reh’g denied. | 1 | 2 |
Bielski v. Zorngreen1 sentence2015Bielski v. Zorn, 627 N.E.2d 880, 888 (Ind. Tax Ct.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Calumet National Bank v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.green2 sentences2011Midwest argues that the trial court improperly granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings because Midwest does have standing to pursue its claims. “ ‘The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s *903 power.’ ” Nat’l Wine & Spirits Corp. v. Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n, 945 N.E.2d 182, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Hauer v. BRDD of Ind., Inc., 654 N.E.2d 816, 317 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied (1996)), trans. dismissed. “ ‘The standing requirement is a limit on the court’s jurisdiction which restrains the judici 2011Midwest argues that the trial court improperly granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings because Midwest does have standing to pursue its claims. “ ‘The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s *903 power.’ ” Nat’l Wine & Spirits Corp. v. Ind. Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n, 945 N.E.2d 182, 184 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Hauer v. BRDD of Ind., Inc., 654 N.E.2d 816, 317 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied (1996)), trans. dismissed. “ ‘The standing requirement is a limit on the court’s jurisdiction which restrains the judici | 1 | 1 |
AREA PLAN COM'N EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH CTY v. Hatfieldgreen1 sentence2006“The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the courts [sic] power and acts to restrain the judiciary to resolving real controversies in which the complaining party has a demonstrable injury.” Area Plan Comm’n, Evansville-Vanderburgh County v. Hatfield, 820 N.E.2d 696, 699 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Hosler Ex Rel. Hosler v. Caterpillar, Inc.green1 sentence2002Hosier v. Caterpillar, Inc., 710 N.E.2d 193, 197 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied: The judicial doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s power. | 1 | 1 |
Regan v. Uebelhorgreen1 sentence1998Regan v. Uebelhor, 690 N.E.2d 1222, 1225 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), 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 |
|---|---|---|
21st Amendment, Inc. v. Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Commission
green
1 sentence2020The doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the court’s power. 21st Amendment, Inc., 84 N.E.3d 691 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Board Of Trustees Of Purdue University, d/b/a Purdue University and Purdue Calumet Thomas Keon v. Dr. Maurice Eisenstein
green
1 sentence2018Further, as a matter of jurisprudence, "we do not decide cases upon constitutional grounds when they can be decided upon other grounds." Superior Const. Co. v. Carr , 564 N.E.2d 281 , 284 (Ind. 1990). [15] " 'The doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the Court's power.' " Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ. v. Eisenstein , 87 N.E.3d 481 , 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Barnette v. U.S. Architects, LLP , 15 N.E.3d 1 , 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), reh'g denied ). " 'The standing requirement restrains the judiciary to resolving only those cases an | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Charlynn G. Hulse v. Indiana State Fair Board
green
2 sentences2018"The doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the Court's power." *1136 Hulse v. Ind. State Fair Bd. , 94 N.E.3d 726 , 730 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (internal quotation omitted). 2018"The standing requirement restrains the judiciary to resolving only those cases and controversies in which the complaining party has a demonstrable injury ." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Superior Construction Co. v. Carr
green
1 sentence2018Further, as a matter of jurisprudence, "we do not decide cases upon constitutional grounds when they can be decided upon other grounds." Superior Const. Co. v. Carr , 564 N.E.2d 281 , 284 (Ind. 1990). [15] " 'The doctrine of standing focuses on whether the complaining party is the proper person to invoke the Court's power.' " Bd. of Trustees of Purdue Univ. v. Eisenstein , 87 N.E.3d 481 , 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Barnette v. U.S. Architects, LLP , 15 N.E.3d 1 , 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), reh'g denied ). " 'The standing requirement restrains the judiciary to resolving only those cases an | 1 | 2018–2018 |