17 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1990–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mary Ann Crider v. Robert Cridergreen1 sentence2017See Crider, 26 N.E.3d at 1048 . | 1 | 1 |
Estudillo v. Estudillogreen1 sentence2014“Waste and misuse of marital assets are the ‘hallmarks of dissipation.’” Estudillo v. Estudillo, 956 N.E.2d 1084, 1094 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Goodman v. Goodman, 754 N.E.2d 595, 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Goodman v. Goodmangreen1 sentence2014“Waste and misuse of marital assets are the ‘hallmarks of dissipation.’” Estudillo v. Estudillo, 956 N.E.2d 1084, 1094 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Goodman v. Goodman, 754 N.E.2d 595, 598 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Quanardel Wells v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2014Regarding the nature of the offense, one factor in determining the appropriateness of the deviation from the standard sentence is “whether there is anything more or less egregious about the offense committed by the defendant that makes it different from the typical 6 offense.” Wells v. State, 2 N.E.3d 123, 131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Paulgreen1 sentence2010Cox v. Paul, 828 N.E.2d 907, 912 (Ind.2005). "''Whether a particular act or omission is a breach of duty is generally a question of fact for the jury'" Briesacher, 888 N.E.2d at 194 (quoting N. Ind. Pub. | 1 | 1 |
Burrell v. Lake County Plan Commissiongreen1 sentence2007In support of its claim of trial court error, the County Commissioners focus this court’s attention on a set of three cases, purportedly standing for the proposition that the mere inclusion of the phrase ‘general welfare’ is sufficiently concrete: Burrell v. Lake County Plan Com’n, 624 N.E.2d 526, 528-30 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied; Wolff v. Mooresville Plan Com’n, 754 N.E.2d 589, 592 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001); and Hickory Hills Dev. | 1 | 1 |
Wolff v. Mooresville Plan Commissiongreen1 sentence2007In support of its claim of trial court error, the County Commissioners focus this court’s attention on a set of three cases, purportedly standing for the proposition that the mere inclusion of the phrase ‘general welfare’ is sufficiently concrete: Burrell v. Lake County Plan Com’n, 624 N.E.2d 526, 528-30 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied; Wolff v. Mooresville Plan Com’n, 754 N.E.2d 589, 592 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001); and Hickory Hills Dev. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
KD EX REL. KD v. Chambers
green
2 sentences2014The Plaintiffs filed a response to the Defendants’ motion as well as a proposed issue instruction outlining three claims of breaches of the standard of care: 1) that K.D. was given ten times more than the recommended dose of Benadryl; 2) that “the rate at which the Benadryl was pushed was deviation in the standard of care”; and 3) that “the giving of additional central nervous system depressants in the face of specific order to the contrary was a deviation in the standard of care.” Id. (citation omitted). 2014Although the panel in K.D. examined the statements and arguments made by counsel in the Plaintiffs’ submission, its holding, which allowed the Plaintiffs to present evidence related to the rate at which the Benadryl was administered while foreclosing their attempt to present evidence regarding whether the giving of additional central nervous system depressants was a deviation in the standard of care, focused on the fact that the only evidence which was submitted to the medical review panel for their consideration concerned the Benadryl overdose. 951 N.E.2d at 864 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Smith v. Smith
green
1 sentence2025Smith, 938 N.E.2d at 861 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Bhatia v. Kollipara
green
1 sentence2019Bhatia, 916 N.E.2d at 246 n.1. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Carter v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
green
1 sentence2010Although "[the duty never changes ..., the standard of conduct required to measure up to that duty varies depending upon the particular cireum-stances." Carter, 837 N.E.2d at 515 . *1247 Therefore, the plaintiff in a negligence action bears the burden of establishing a standard of conduct as well as a deviation from that standard. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Briesacher v. Specialized Restoration & Construction, Inc.
green
1 sentence2010Cox v. Paul, 828 N.E.2d 907, 912 (Ind.2005). "''Whether a particular act or omission is a breach of duty is generally a question of fact for the jury'" Briesacher, 888 N.E.2d at 194 (quoting N. Ind. Pub. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kemp v. State Board of Tax Commissioners
green
1 sentence2001Id. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Weinberg v. Geary
green
2 sentences1999In Weinberg , we stated that “a plaintiff is not required to present expert testimony in cases where a deviation from the standard of care is a matter within the common understanding of lay persons and the deficiency of the physician’s conduct ‘speaks for itself ” Id. 1999They rely on our statement that “ ‘common knowledge’ or res ipsa loquitur exception, has been narrowly construed to apply only in cases of ‘obvious’ malpractice and, thus, has typically been limited to cases involving the failure of an operating physician to remove some surgical implement or other foreign object from the patient’s body.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Whyde v. Czarkowski
green
1 sentence1997Indeed, a plaintiff is not required to present expert testimony in cases where a deviation from the standard of care is a matter within the common understanding of lay persons and the deficiency of the physician’s conduct “speaks for itself’ See Whyde, 659 N.E.2d at 627-28 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Robey v. State
green
1 sentence1993Robey v. State (1990), Ind., 555 N.E.2d 145, 150 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Horace A. Arnold, as Administrator of the Estate of Robert Eugene Arnold v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1993Arnold, 260 F.2d at 164 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Marks v. Gaskill
green
1 sentence1991The same day our supreme court handed down Marks, 563 N.E.2d 1284 , it handed down Canfield v. Sandock (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 1279 as a companion case. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Canfield v. Sandock
green
1 sentence1991The same day our supreme court handed down Marks, 563 N.E.2d 1284 , it handed down Canfield v. Sandock (1990), Ind., 563 N.E.2d 1279 as a companion case. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
In Re the Marriage of Davidson
green
2 sentences1990Following this legislative adoption of the equal division presumption, the Court of Appeals held that a deviation from the presumption requires a trial court to enter findings explaining "its reasons for deviating from the presumption of an equal division." - In re Marriage of Davidson (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 641, 646 , While asserting that the statutory presumption "speaks not in terms of approximation, but rather in terms of exactitude," 540 N.E.2d at 645 , the Davidson order of remand was obviously necessary primarily due to the trial court's implied award of an inheritance to the husb 1990Following this legislative adoption of the equal division presumption, the Court of Appeals held that a deviation from the presumption requires a trial court to enter findings explaining "its reasons for deviating from the presumption of an equal division." - In re Marriage of Davidson (1989), Ind.App., 540 N.E.2d 641, 646 , While asserting that the statutory presumption "speaks not in terms of approximation, but rather in terms of exactitude," 540 N.E.2d at 645 , the Davidson order of remand was obviously necessary primarily due to the trial court's implied award of an inheritance to the husb | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Frappier v. State
green
1 sentence1990Frappier v. State (1983), Ind., 448 N.E.2d 1188 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.