18 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1979–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re AKgreen2 sentences2017See In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d at 220-21 (discussing that because Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, only one of the listed factors need be established). 2017See In re A.K., 924 N.E.2d at 220-21 (discussing that Indiana Code section 31-35-2-4(b)(2)(B) is written in the disjunctive, such that only one of the listed factors need be established). | 2 | 2 |
Graber v. State Board of Tax Commissionersgreen2 sentences2009See Graber, 727 N.E.2d at 807 . 6 Rather, all that is required by the DLGF is that it consider each of the listed factors, though it does not have to base its ultimate decision on them. 2009See id. | 2 | 2 |
Rick C. Sasso, M.D., and SEE LLC v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., and Medtronic, Inc.green1 sentence2019Moreover, “we will affirm the judgment of the trial court on any basis that the record will sustain.” Sasso v. Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., 45 N.E.3d 835, 840 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied. [9] Father contends that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Mother primary physical custody of the now-five-year-old A.F. | 1 | 1 |
Poore v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Therefore, we conclude that the escape charges filed against Robinson in the instant matter should be discharged for failure by the State to prosecute within seventy days pursuant to Criminal Rule 4(B) See Poore v. State, 685 N.E.2d 36, 41 (Ind.1997) (providing that the proper remedy is discharge when the State fails to bring a defendant to trial within Criminal Rule 4(B)'s prescribed seventy-day time limit and none of the Rule's exceptions excuse or explain the delay). | 1 | 1 |
State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc.green1 sentence2003State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc., 743 N.E.2d 247, 251 (Ind.2001). | 1 | 1 |
Fossella v. Dinkinsgreen1 sentence1987In Lystorezyk, the court listed those factors which should be considered when determining the reasonableness of the attorney's fee: "(1) The time, labor, and skill required to perform the legal service properly, *100 (2) The difficulty of the issue involved, (3) The fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services, (4) The amount involved, and (5) The time limitations imposed by the circumstances." 485 N.E.2d at 1017. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Willis v. State
green
2 sentences2019This list of factors is non-exhaustive, and " 'not all of the listed factors may be relevant or applicable in every case.' " Willis , 888 N.E.2d at 182 . [12] A review of the relevant factors listed above supports the jury's decision to reject Hanks's parental privilege defense. 2018This list of factors is non-exhaustive, and “‘not all of the listed factors may be relevant or applicable in every case.’” Id. (quoting Willis, 888 N.E.2d at 1082 ). [17] Here, T.R. was merely four years old and did not do anything reasonably requiring physical discipline. | 2 | 2018–2019 |
State v. Cioch
green
1 sentence2018Nonetheless, the State contends that Captain Weilhamer "correctly presumed that a second test was required and administered a second test" because, "[f]or every one of the listed error messages that are outlined in the regulation, the next step is to 'perform an additional breath test[.]' " Id. (quoting 260 I.A.C. 2-4-2 ). 4 [19] While the State is correct that a test operator must perform an additional breath test if the operator receives any of the listed six error messages, the actual steps that a test operator must take when administering the second test vary based on the specific message | 1 | 2018–2018 |
R.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services
green
1 sentence2017Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 40A05-1701-JT-62 | June 27, 2017 Page 17 of 21 child’s physical, mental and social development is permanently impaired before terminating the parent-child relationship.” K.T.K., 989 N.E.2d at 1235 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners
green
1 sentence2001X, § 1, the Tax Court concluded, the "logical" interpretation is that the General Assembly intended for the State Board to consider the listed factors in "placing a particular parcel within a specific category of a land valuation order." IRC, 722 N.E.2d at 933 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Coster v. Coster
green
2 sentences1997In Coster v. Coster, 452 N.E.2d 397 (Ind.Ct.App.1983), this Court listed as factors tending to show that periodic payments were maintenance the following: 1) a specific designation as “maintenance”; 2) provisions for termination of payments upon the death of either the wife or husband; and 3) the installments are to be made from *200 future income. 1997Id. at 403 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re the Marriage of Ford
green
1 sentence1989Specific findings on each of the listed factors are not required.” In Re Marriage of Ford (1984), Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 357, 363 , reh. denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hoyle v. Hoyle
green
1 sentence1988Hoyle v. Hoyle (1985), Ind.App., 473 N.E.2d 653 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Mullens v. State
green
2 sentences1987Mullens v. State (1983), Ind., 456 N.E.2d 411 . 1987Mullens v. State (1983), Ind., 456 N.E.2d 411 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Currie v. State
green
2 sentences1985He cites Currie v. State (1988), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 1252, at 1254 , wherein this Court stated that "[the mere statement that Cur-rie had two prior felony convictions is not sufficient." In that case, the trial court had given the following reasons for enhancing the sentence: " Evidence is heard and the Court, after reviewing the the [sic] Pre-Sentence Investigation Report now finds two prior felony convictions are aggravating circumstances and finds no mitigating circumstances in this cause ....'" 448 N.E.2d at 1254 . 1985He cites Currie v. State (1988), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 1252, at 1254 , wherein this Court stated that "[the mere statement that Cur-rie had two prior felony convictions is not sufficient." In that case, the trial court had given the following reasons for enhancing the sentence: " Evidence is heard and the Court, after reviewing the the [sic] Pre-Sentence Investigation Report now finds two prior felony convictions are aggravating circumstances and finds no mitigating circumstances in this cause ....'" 448 N.E.2d at 1254 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Wallace v. Feehan
green
2 sentences1979The Indiana Supreme Court has engaged in such review historically, Wallace v. Feehan (1934), 206 Ind. 522 , 190 N.E. 438 ; Dept. of Insurance v. Motors Ins. 1979The Indiana Supreme Court has engaged in such review historically, Wallace v. Feehan (1934), 206 Ind. 522 , 190 N.E. 438 ; Dept. of Insurance v. Motors Ins. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.