Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Advantage Home Health Care, Inc. v. Indiana State Department of Healthgreen1 sentence2026Matter of R.L., 246 N.E.3d at 261 (alteration in original) (quoting Advantage Home Health Care, Inc. v. Ind. State Dep’t of Health, 829 N.E.2d 499, 503 (Ind. 2005)). | 1 | 1 |
Coutee v. Lafayette Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc.green1 sentence2016Servs., Inc., 792 N.E.2d 907, 911-12 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (observing that the General Assembly has legislated the protection for certain employees to be able to blow the whistle without retaliation and holding that the plaintiffs cause of action, if any, is under the statute, not the common law), trans. denied. [14] In an attempt to avoid the exhaustion of remedies requirement, Shoemaker asserts two independent arguments. | 1 | 1 |
Barnette v. US Architects, LLPgreen1 sentence2014Barnette v. U.S. Architects, LLP, 15 N.E.3d 1, 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Ispat Inland, Inc.green2 sentences2003See, eg., State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 477, 482-88 (Ind.2003); Fratus v. Marion Cmty. Schs. 2003See, e.g., State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 477, 482-83 (Ind.2003); Fratus v. Marion Cmty. Schs. | 1 | 1 |
Indiana State Highway Commission v. Zehnergreen2 sentences1998For example, in Indiana State Highway Comm’n v. Zehner, 174 Ind.App. 176, 178 , 366 N.E.2d 697, 698 (1977), a landowner, who was forced to relocate due to the placement of an interstate highway, submitted a claim for reimbursement of relocation expenses to the State Highway Commission. 1998For example, in Indiana State Highway Comm’n v. Zehner, 174 Ind.App. 176, 178 , 366 N.E.2d 697, 698 (1977), a landowner, who was forced to relocate due to the placement of an interstate highway, submitted a claim for reimbursement of relocation expenses to the State Highway Commission. | 1 | 1 |
City of Evansville v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co.green2 sentences1990See City of Evansville v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. (1977), 167 Ind.App. 472, 504 , 339 N.E.2d 562, 582-83 . 1990See City of Evansville v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. (1977), 167 Ind.App. 472, 504 , 339 N.E.2d 562, 582-83 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utilities, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004In support of its argument, the Class directs us to Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Utilities, Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641 (Ind.1995), where our supreme court recognized that when an exhaustion of remedies defense is raised, the trial court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. 1996The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not, in our view, jurisdictional but prudential; the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, on the other hand, is jurisdictional and, where applicable, makes a Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter appropriate, [footnote omitted] Austin Lakes Joint Venture, 648 N.E.2d at 644-45 . | 4 | 1996–2005 |
Robert Hansen, D/B/A Hansen Trucking v. Norfolk and Western Railway Company
green
2 sentences2014“The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not, in our view, jurisdictional but prudential; the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, on the other hand, is jurisdictional 7 and, where applicable, makes a Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter appropriate.” Id. 2014“The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is not, in our view, jurisdictional but prudential; the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, on the other hand, is jurisdictional and, where applicable, makes a Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter appropriate.” Id. | 2 | 2014–2014 |
MHC Surgical Center Associates, Inc. v. STATE OF OMPP
green
1 sentence2007Id. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Clinkenbeard v. United States
green
2 sentences1981This element of fairness was recognized more than a century ago by the Supreme Court of the United States in Clinkenbeard v. United States (1874) 88 U.S. 65 , 21 Wall. 65 , 22 L.Ed. 477 , which dealt with the exhaustion of remedies rule. 1981This element of fairness was recognized more than a century ago by the Supreme Court of the United States in Clinkenbeard v. United States (1874) 88 U.S. 65 , 21 Wall. 65 , 22 L.Ed. 477 , which dealt with the exhaustion of remedies rule. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.