wisdom requirement in Indiana

16 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1874–2001 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
Williams v. Stategreen ind · 1996 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001The breadth of this evaluation underscores the wisdom of the requirement that such trial court determinations be "accorded great deference" on appeal, McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N 2001McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) ( quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364, 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N.E.2d 332, 339-40 (Ind.1996) (trial court's determination of Batson challenge is reviewed deferentially under the clearly erroneous standard); Morse, 1	1	1
McCants v. Stategreen ind · 1997 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001The breadth of this evaluation underscores the wisdom of the requirement that such trial court determinations be "accorded great deference" on appeal, McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N 2001McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) ( quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364, 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N.E.2d 332, 339-40 (Ind.1996) (trial court's determination of Batson challenge is reviewed deferentially under the clearly erroneous standard); Morse, 1	1	1
Byron K. Morse v. Craig Hanksgreen ca7 · 1999 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001The breadth of this evaluation underscores the wisdom of the requirement that such trial court determinations be "accorded great deference" on appeal, McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N 2001McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) ( quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364, 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N.E.2d 332, 339-40 (Ind.1996) (trial court's determination of Batson challenge is reviewed deferentially under the clearly erroneous standard); Morse, 1	1	1
Kent v. Stategreen ind · 1996 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001The breadth of this evaluation underscores the wisdom of the requirement that such trial court determinations be "accorded great deference" on appeal, McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N 2001McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) ( quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364, 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N.E.2d 332, 339-40 (Ind.1996) (trial court's determination of Batson challenge is reviewed deferentially under the clearly erroneous standard); Morse, 1	1	1
Batson v. Kentuckygreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001The breadth of this evaluation underscores the wisdom of the requirement that such trial court determinations be "accorded great deference" on appeal, McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N 2001The breadth of this evaluation underscores the wisdom of the requirement that such trial court determinations be "accorded great deference" on appeal, McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N	1	1
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. Hickmangreen indctapp · 1907 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998Co. v. Hickman, 40 Ind.App. 315, 318 , 81 N.E. 1086, 1087 (1907). 1998Co. v. Hickman, 40 Ind.App. 315, 318 , 81 N.E. 1086, 1087 (1907).	1	1
United States v. Whitegreen scotus · 1944 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1988–1988 2 sentences 1988See United States v. White (1944), 322 U.S. 694 , 64 S.Ct. 1248 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 , 152 A.L.R. 1202 ; Marshall, supra. Although we recognize the wisdom of applying an exception to the general rule in the case of large unincorporated associations such as labor unions having a hierarchy of structure that drastically changes the relationship of membership to association and the control that a member has in its affairs, we find it clearly demonstrated that no such question was presented in regard to the Calvary Baptist Church and its members. 1988See United States v. White (1944), 322 U.S. 694 , 64 S.Ct. 1248 , 88 L.Ed. 1542 , 152 A.L.R. 1202 ; Marshall, supra. Although we recognize the wisdom of applying an exception to the general rule in the case of large unincorporated associations such as labor unions having a hierarchy of structure that drastically changes the relationship of membership to association and the control that a member has in its affairs, we find it clearly demonstrated that no such question was presented in regard to the Calvary Baptist Church and its members.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Calvary Baptist Church v. Joseph green ind · 1988 2 sentences 1998There, the Court stated: Although we recognize the wisdom of applying an exception to the general rule in the case of large unincorporated associations such as labor unions having a hierarchy of structure that drastically changes the relationship of membership to association and the control that a member has in its affairs, we find it clearly demonstrated that no such question was presented in regard to the Calvary Baptist Church and its members. 522 N.E.2d at 375 . 1997The court stated in this regard: “... we recognize the wisdom of applying an exception to the general rule in the case of large unincorporated associations such as labor unions having a hierarchy of structure that drastically changes the relationship of membership to association and the control that a member has in its affairs ...” 522 N.E.2d 371, 375 .	4	1996–1998
Willard v. First Church of Christ, Scientist green cal · 1972 2 sentences 1998Noting that other jurisdictions had also decided against the wisdom of the rule, id. at 964 n.4, the court held that Russell’s intent to create a life estate in Parker trumped application of the common law rule. 1997Noting that other jurisdictions had also decided against the wisdom of the rule, id. at 964 n. 4, the court held that Russell's intent to create a life estate in Parker trumped application of the common law rule.	2	1997–1998
Sostheim v. Sostheim neutral ind · 1941 2 sentences 1954“The case at bar aptly illustrates the wisdom of the rule that this court may not weigh conflicting evidence, but will affirm the judgment if there is any evidence from which the trial court could reasonably have inferred the ultimate facts necessary to its decision, Sostheim v. Sostheim (1941), 218 Ind. 352 , 32 N. E. (2d) 699, for from a reading of the transcript it would be utterly impossible for this court to ascertain the facts and fix the fault as between these parties. 1943The case at bar aptly illustrates the wisdom of the rule that this court may not weigh conflicting evidence, but will,affirm the' judgment if there is any evidence from which the trial court could reasonably have inferred the ultimate facts necessary to its decision, Sostheim v. Sostheim (1941), 218 Ind. 352 , 32 N. E. (2d) 699, for from a reading of the transcript it would be utterly impossible for this court to ascertain the facts and fix the fault as between these parties.	2	1943–1954
Hernandez v. New York green scotus · 1991 2 sentences 2001The breadth of this evaluation underscores the wisdom of the requirement that such trial court determinations be "accorded great deference" on appeal, McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N 2001The breadth of this evaluation underscores the wisdom of the requirement that such trial court determinations be "accorded great deference" on appeal, McCants v. State, 686 N.E.2d 1281, 1284 (Ind.1997); Williams v. State, 669 N.E.2d 1372, 1379 (Ind.1996) (quoting Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. at 364 , 111 S.Ct. at 1868-69 , 114 L.Ed.2d at 409 ); see also Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 , 98 n. 21, 106 S.Ct. 1712 , 1724 n. 21, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 , 88-89 n. 21 (1986) (trial court's finding "largely will turn on evaluation of credibility [and should be given] great deference."); Kent v. State, 675 N	1	2001–2001
Marshall v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union green cal · 1962 2 sentences 1998The establishment of an exception to the general rule is frequently attributed to the California case of Marshall v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 57 Cal.2d 781, 22 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 371 P.2d 987 (Cal.1962), in which the California Supreme Court allowed a union member to bring a tort action against the union. 1998The establishment of an exception to the general rule is frequently attributed to the California case of Marshall v. International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, 57 Cal.2d 781, 22 Cal.Rptr. 211 , 371 P.2d 987 (Cal.1962), in which the California Supreme Court allowed a union member to bring a tort action against the union.	1	1998–1998
White v. Cox green calctapp · 1971 1 sentence 1998Id.	1	1998–1998
Smiley v. Smiley green indctapp · 1943 2 sentences 1954Only the trial court who saw and heard them testify is in a position to do so.” Draper, J., in Smiley v. Smiley (1943), 114 Ind. App. 138, 139 , 51 N. E. 2d 98 . 1954Only the trial court who saw and heard them testify is in a position to do so.” Draper, J., in Smiley v. Smiley (1943), 114 Ind. App. 138, 139 , 51 N. E. 2d 98 .	1	1954–1954
John A. Schumaker Co. v. Kendrew neutral indctapp · 1918 2 sentences 1924John A. Schumaker Co. v. Kendrew (1918), 68 Ind. App. 466 , 120 N. E. 722 . 1924John A. Schumaker Co. v. Kendrew (1918), 68 Ind. App. 466 , 120 N. E. 722 .	1	1924–1924
Allen v. Craft green ind · 1887 1 sentence 1912Teal v. Richardson (1903), 160 Ind. 119 ; Shimer v. Mann (1885), 99 Ind. 190, 192 , 50 Am Rep. 82; Allen v. Craft (1887), 109 Ind. 476, 479 , 58 Am.	1	1912–1912
Shimer v. Mann green ind · 1884 1 sentence 1912Teal v. Richardson (1903), 160 Ind. 119 ; Shimer v. Mann (1885), 99 Ind. 190, 192 , 50 Am Rep. 82; Allen v. Craft (1887), 109 Ind. 476, 479 , 58 Am.	1	1912–1912
Teal v. Richardson green ind · 1903 1 sentence 1912Teal v. Richardson (1903), 160 Ind. 119 ; Shimer v. Mann (1885), 99 Ind. 190, 192 , 50 Am Rep. 82; Allen v. Craft (1887), 109 Ind. 476, 479 , 58 Am.	1	1912–1912
Gerber v. Grabel neutral ill · 1854 1 sentence 1877An. 407, where the easement of light to a window was coupled with the right of way through a passage, it was held, that they could not be obstructed; but the decision was expressly placed upon the ground that these servitudes were visible and palpable, and, on examination of the property the purchaser must have seen them,—the court remarking, that, “ could we believe that he was ignorant of them, a very different case would have been presented.” In the ease of Gerber v. Grabel, 16 Ill. 217 , it is held, that “ Twenty years’ uninterrupted and unquestioned enjoyment of lights, constitutes them a	1	1877–1877
Lomax v. Bailey green ind · 1846 1 sentence 1874But in the case of Lomax v. Bailey, 7 Blackf. 599 , the opinion in which was pronounced by Judge Dewey, the wisdom of the rule is doubted, and its rigor somewhat relaxed.	1	1874–1874
McKinney v. Springer green ind · 1851 1 sentence 1874In the case of McKinney v. Springer, 3 Ind. 59 , and the case-of E pperly v. Bailey, 3 Ind. 72 , the old rule, it may be said,, was abrogated.	1	1874–1874
Epperly v. Bailey neutral ind · 1851 1 sentence 1874In the case of McKinney v. Springer, 3 Ind. 59 , and the case-of E pperly v. Bailey, 3 Ind. 72 , the old rule, it may be said,, was abrogated.	1	1874–1874

Where else courts name it

CA 42 (1908–2023) TX 34 (1901–2025) IL 30 (1883–2009) PA 20 (1934–2024) AL 18 (1919–2016) FL 18 (1926–2011) WA 17 (1950–2020) IN 16 (1874–2001) MI 12 (1899–2020) NY 12 (1834–2020) OK 10 (1911–1992) KY 9 (1911–2013) TN 9 (1945–2017) NJ 8 (1931–2016) MO 8 (1869–1980) CO 7 (1983–2026) GA 7 (1936–2024) MT 6 (1922–2002) UT 6 (1994–2020) WY 5 (1953–1996) VA 4 (1895–2007) WI 4 (1980–2015) VT 4 (1919–1992) OH 4 (1897–2005) ID 4 (1947–2018) NC 4 (1913–1981) CT 4 (1942–2016) MD 4 (1953–2019) AR 4 (1924–1980) MN 4 (1985–2015) RI 4 (1969–2024) NM 4 (1917–2023) AZ 3 (2000–2026) KS 3 (1911–1935) MS 3 (1931–1969) OR 3 (1935–1976) HI 3 (1982–2002) SC 3 (1932–2013) AK 3 (1973–2016) DE 3 (1987–2014) LA 3 (1953–1986) DC 2 (1977–2021) MA 2 (1985–1989)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check