17 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Boruff v. Jessephgreen2 sentences2005Had the operation been successful, [the plaintiff] would still be entitled to damages if she proved the elements of her claim." *54 Id. at 511-12 (quoting Boruff v. Jesseph, 576 N.E.2d 1297, 1299 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (Barteau, J., dissenting)). 2001See Boruff v. Jesseph, 576 N.E.2d 1297, 1300 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (in the context of a medical malpractice action premised upon a battery claim due to an operation performed without the patient's consent). | 2 | 2 |
Spar v. Chagreen2 sentences2019Lack of informed consent “is viewed as a battery claim if there is an alleged complete lack of consent to medical treatment, but otherwise it is ‘regarded as a specific form of Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CT-2486 | October 10, 2019 Page 15 of 27 negligence for breach of the required standard of professional conduct.’” Id. 2019In light of the medical review panel’s opinion and our review of the record, we conclude that Kennedy’s lack of informed consent claim is of the second type. [20] “To succeed on a lack of informed consent action, the plaintiff must prove ‘(1) nondisclosure of required information; (2) actual damage . . . (3) resulting from the risks of which the patient was not informed; (4) cause in fact, which is to say that the plaintiff would have rejected the medical treatment if she had known the risk; and (5) that reasonable persons, if properly informed, would have rejected the proposed treatment.’” Sp | 1 | 4 |
Mullins v. Parkview Hospital, Inc.green2 sentences2011Id. at 611-12 . 2008One is liable for the tort of battery if “(a) he acts intending to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the person of the other or third person, or an imminent apprehension of such contact, and (b) a harmful contact with the person of the other directly or indirectly results.” Mullins v. Parkview Hosp., Inc., 865 N.E.2d 608, 610 (Ind.2007) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 13 (1965)). | 1 | 2 |
Crawford v. City of Munciegreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., id.; Crawford v. City of Muncie, 655 N.E.2d 614, 622 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (holding that the trial court properly granted summary judgment on the inmate's battery claim where the officer's undisputed evidence indicated that any injury to the inmate's hand could not have been caused by the officer striking the inmate during his arrest and the inmate failed to designate any evidence of a genuine issue of material fact and again relied upon the allegations in his complaint), reh'g denied, trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Mark v. Mosergreen2 sentences2002There is a well-established "`duty on the part of school personnel to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of children under their authority.'" Mark v. Moser, 746 N.E.2d 410, 414 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (quoting Beckett v. Clinton Prairie Sch. 2002There is a well-established "'duty on the part of school personnel to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for the safety of children under their authority'" Mark v. Moser, 746 N.E.2d 410, 414 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (quoting Beckett v. Clinton Prairie Sch. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kelly v. State
green
2 sentences2020This is a result-based statute, because the result—injury that creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious permanent disfigurement—“is part of the definition of the crime.” Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 266 (quoting Kelly v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). “‘Where several . . . injuries occur in the course of a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-202 | October 29, 2020 Page 13 of 23 single incident,’ the prohibited offense has been perpetrated ‘several times over.’” Id. (quoting Kelly, 527 N.E.2d 1148 ).5 Accordingly, each time Madden threw hot water on A.C. could suppo 2020This is a result-based statute, because the result—injury that creates a substantial risk of death or causes serious permanent disfigurement—“is part of the definition of the crime.” Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 266 (quoting Kelly v. State, 527 N.E.2d 1148 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). “‘Where several . . . injuries occur in the course of a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-CR-202 | October 29, 2020 Page 13 of 23 single incident,’ the prohibited offense has been perpetrated ‘several times over.’” Id. (quoting Kelly, 527 N.E.2d 1148 ).5 Accordingly, each time Madden threw hot water on A.C. could suppo | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Angle v. State
green
1 sentence2017Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bader v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2017Lack of informed consent is viewed as a battery claim if there is an alleged complete lack of consent to medical -treatment, but otherwise it is “regarded as a specific form, of negligence for breach of the required standard of professional conduct.” Id. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cacdac v. West
green
1 sentence2005Had the operation been successful, [the plaintiff] would still be entitled to damages if she proved the elements of her claim." *54 Id. at 511-12 (quoting Boruff v. Jesseph, 576 N.E.2d 1297, 1299 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (Barteau, J., dissenting)). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Robins v. Harris
green
2 sentences2002Chief Judge Sharpnack dissented from both the original majority opinion and the opinion after rehearing on the issue of consent as a defense to the battery claim. 740 N.E.2d at 919-20 , 748 N.E.2d at 1148. 2002Chief Judge Sharpnack dissented from both the original majority opinion and the opinion after rehearing on the issue of consent as a defense to the battery claim. 740 N.E.2d at 919-20 , 743 N.E.2d at 1143 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Robins v. Harris
neutral
1 sentence2002Chief Judge Sharpnack dissented from both the original majority opinion and the opinion after rehearing on the issue of consent as a defense to the battery claim. 740 N.E.2d at 919-20 , 743 N.E.2d at 1143 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Van Sice v. Sentany
green
1 sentence1995Van Sice, 595 N.E.2d at 266-67 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Johnson v. State
green
1 sentence1990In support of this argument, appellant cites Johnson v. State (1984), Ind., 464 N.E.2d 1309 , where this Court found that it was not error for a trial court to give a battery instruction in a prosecution for attempted murder. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Henning v. State
green
1 sentence1985The trial court properly refused to give the battery instruction under step two of this test: "While the evidence at trial demonstrated that the victim received blows constituting "rude and insolent touching", the sime qua non of battery under Ind.Code § 35-42-2-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.), because the evidence also conclusively demonstrated that a robbery took place, and the only question was whether Defendant participated, an instruction on battery was not justified by the evidence, would have invited a compromise verdict, and was properly refused." Henning v. State (1985), Ind., 477 N.E.2d 547, 55 | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.