18 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rauch v. Shotsgreen2 sentences2017See Rauch v. Shots (1989), Ind. App., 533 N.E.2d 193, 194 , trans. denied. 1994See Rauch v. Shots (1989), Ind.App., 533 N.E.2d 193, 194 , trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Cynthia L. Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, as successor by merger to Chase Home Financegreen2 sentences2015Id. *374 “A party making a claim under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) and alleging fraud or misrepresentation must demonstrate that: (1) the opposing party knew or should have known from the available information that the representation is false, and (2) the misrepresentation was made with respect to a material fact which would change the trial court’s judgment.” Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 982 N.E.2d 299, 310-11 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted), trans. denied (2012). 2014Id. 11 A party making a claim under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) and alleging fraud or misrepresentation must demonstrate that: (1) the opposing party knew or should have known from the available information that the representation made was false, and (2) the misrepresentation was made with respect to a material fact which would change the trial court’s judgment.” Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 982 N.E.2d 299, 310-311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Baker v. Heye-Americagreen2 sentences2018Baker v. Heye-Am. , 799 N.E.2d 1135 , 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). [I]n an action based on an alleged design defect in the product or based on an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of the product, the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in designing the product or in providing the warnings or instructions. 2006Baker v. Heye-America, 799 N.E.2d 1135, 1140 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trams. denied. "[In an action based on ... an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of the product, the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the cireumstances in ... providing the warnings or instructions." Ind.Code § 34-20-22. | 1 | 2 |
Mominee v. Kinggreen1 sentence2013Mominee v. King, 629 N.E.2d 1280, 1282 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (internal citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Zwiebel v. Zwiebelgreen1 sentence2012A party making a claim under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) and alleging fraud or mis *311 representation must demonstrate that: (1) “the opposing party knew or should have known from the available information that the representation made was false,” and (2) “the misrepresentation was made with respect to a material fact which would change the trial court’s judgment.” Zwiebel v. Zwiebel, 689 N.E.2d 746, 748 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Otto v. Park Garden Associatesgreen1 sentence2012See also Otto v. Park Garden Assocs., 612 N.E.2d 135, 142 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Koske v. Townsend Engineering Co.green1 sentence1998Koske v. Townsend Engineering Co., 551 N.E.2d 437, 441 (Ind.1990). 11 Further, no additional warning must be furnished where such warnings would not add to the user’s understanding of the characteristics of the product. | 1 | 1 |
Jarrell v. Monsanto Co.green1 sentence1997Pursuant to this statute, the manufacturer is hable when it “puts into the stream of commerce any product without reasonable (adequate) warnings thereby leaving it in a condition unreasonably dangerous to any user, if such warnings could have been given in the exercise of reasonable diligence.” Jarrell v. Monsanto Co., 528 N.E.2d 1158, 1166 (Ind.Ct.App.1988), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. McColgangreen1 sentence1993Freels v. Winston (1991), Ind.App., 579 N.E.2d 182, 185 (citing McFarland v. Phend & Brown, Inc., (1974), 161 Ind.App. 695 , 317 N.E.2d 460, 462 , trans. denied) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gary Wayne Oswalt v. State of Indiana
green
2 sentences2019Id. [20] By contrast, for-cause motions are available to exclude jurors whose views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his or her duties as a juror in accordance with the instructions given and the oath taken and thus violate the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. 2015Id. [22] By contrast, for-cause motions are available to exclude jurors whose views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his or her duties as a juror in accordance with the instructions given and the oath taken and thus violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights. | 2 | 2015–2019 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford
green
2 sentences2018Rushford , 868 N.E.2d at 810 . "[I]n an action based on ... an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of the product, the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in ... providing the warnings or instructions." I.C. § 34-20-2-2. 2008Id. “[I]n an action based on ... an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of the product, the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in ... providing the warnings or instructions.” I.C. § 34-20-2-2. | 2 | 2008–2018 |
Peter v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 319 (citing Ind. Code § 34-20-2-2 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stonger v. Sorrell
green
1 sentence2015Id. *374 “A party making a claim under Trial Rule 60(B)(8) and alleging fraud or misrepresentation must demonstrate that: (1) the opposing party knew or should have known from the available information that the representation is false, and (2) the misrepresentation was made with respect to a material fact which would change the trial court’s judgment.” Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 982 N.E.2d 299, 310-11 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (citation and quotation marks omitted), trans. denied (2012). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kmart Corp. v. Englebright
green
1 sentence2014Id. 11 A party making a claim under Trial Rule 60(B)(3) and alleging fraud or misrepresentation must demonstrate that: (1) the opposing party knew or should have known from the available information that the representation made was false, and (2) the misrepresentation was made with respect to a material fact which would change the trial court’s judgment.” Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 982 N.E.2d 299, 310-311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), reh’g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Trietsch v. Circle Design Group, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Rushford, 868 N.E.2d at 810 . "[I)n an action based on ... an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of the product, the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the cireumstances in ... providing the warnings or instructions." Ind.Code § 34-20-22. 2009Rushford, 868 N.E.2d at 810 . "[I]n an action based on ... an alleged failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions regarding the use of the product, the party making the claim must establish that the manufacturer or seller failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in ... providing the warnings or instructions." Ind.Code § 34-20-2-2. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
McFarland v. Phend & Brown, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993Freels v. Winston (1991), Ind.App., 579 N.E.2d 182, 185 (citing McFarland v. Phend & Brown, Inc., (1974), 161 Ind.App. 695 , 317 N.E.2d 460, 462 , trans. denied) (emphasis added). 1993Freels v. Winston (1991), Ind.App., 579 N.E.2d 182, 185 (citing McFarland v. Phend & Brown, Inc., (1974), 161 Ind.App. 695 , 317 N.E.2d 460, 462 , trans. denied) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Chesak v. Northern Indiana Bank & Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1991Chesak v. Northern Indiana Bank & Trust Co. (1990), Ind.App., 551 N.E.2d 873, 875 ; Nardine v. Kraft Cheese Co. (in Banc 1944), 114 Ind.App. 399, 403 , 52 N.E.2d 634, 635 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Nardine v. Kraft Cheese Company
green
2 sentences1991Chesak v. Northern Indiana Bank & Trust Co. (1990), Ind.App., 551 N.E.2d 873, 875 ; Nardine v. Kraft Cheese Co. (in Banc 1944), 114 Ind.App. 399, 403 , 52 N.E.2d 634, 635 . 1991Chesak v. Northern Indiana Bank & Trust Co. (1990), Ind.App., 551 N.E.2d 873, 875 ; Nardine v. Kraft Cheese Co. (in Banc 1944), 114 Ind.App. 399, 403 , 52 N.E.2d 634, 635 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.