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 1971–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wallem v. CLS Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2019The one-year clause of the Statute of Frauds applies “only to contracts which, by the express stipulations of the parties, were not to be performed within a year, and not to those which might or might not upon a contingency, be performed within a year.” Tobin v. Ruman, 819 N.E.2d 78, 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Wallem v. CLS Indus., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 880, 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)), trans. denied. 2017As this court has explained, the one-year clause of the statute of frauds applies “only to contracts which, by the express stipulations of the parties, were not to be performed within a year, and not to those which might or might not upon a contingency, be performed within a year.” Tobin v. Ruman, 819 N.E.2d 78, 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Wallem v. CLS Indus., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 880, 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)), trans. denied. | 3 | 3 |
Tobin v. Rumangreen2 sentences2019The one-year clause of the Statute of Frauds applies “only to contracts which, by the express stipulations of the parties, were not to be performed within a year, and not to those which might or might not upon a contingency, be performed within a year.” Tobin v. Ruman, 819 N.E.2d 78, 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Wallem v. CLS Indus., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 880, 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)), trans. denied. 2017As this court has explained, the one-year clause of the statute of frauds applies “only to contracts which, by the express stipulations of the parties, were not to be performed within a year, and not to those which might or might not upon a contingency, be performed within a year.” Tobin v. Ruman, 819 N.E.2d 78, 85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (quoting Wallem v. CLS Indus., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 880, 887 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2000Silkey, 690 N.E.2d at 334 , (quoting Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc., 641 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)), rev’d on other grounds, 669 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1996), reh’g denied (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 166 Ind.App. 34 , 333 N.E.2d 886 (1975). 2000Silkey, 690 N.E.2d at 334 , ( quoting Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc., 641 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)), rev'd on other grounds, 669 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1996), reh'g denied (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 166 Ind.App. 34 , 333 N.E.2d 886 (1975). | 2 | 2 |
Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana Universitygreen2 sentences2000Silkey, 690 N.E.2d at 334 , (quoting Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc., 641 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)), rev’d on other grounds, 669 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1996), reh’g denied (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 166 Ind.App. 34 , 333 N.E.2d 886 (1975). 2000Silkey, 690 N.E.2d at 334 , (quoting Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc., 641 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)), rev’d on other grounds, 669 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1996), reh’g denied (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 166 Ind.App. 34 , 333 N.E.2d 886 (1975). | 1 | 3 |
Silkey v. Investors Diversified Services, Inc.green2 sentences2004The one year clause of the Statute of Frauds has no application to contracts which are capable of being performed within one year of the making thereof. ~ Wallem v. CLS Indus., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 880, 886-87 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (quoting Silkey v. Investors Diversified Servs., Inc., 690 N.E.2d 329, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied ). 2004The one year clause of the Statute of Frauds has no application to contracts which are capable of being performed within one year of the making thereof.' Wallem v. CLS Indus., Inc., 725 N.E.2d 880, 886-87 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (quoting Silkey v. Investors Diversified Servs., Inc., 690 N.E.2d 329, 334 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied ). | 1 | 2 |
Diederich v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Diederich v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1074, 1074 (Ind. 1998). | 1 | 1 |
Leek v. Stategreen1 sentence2017McLayea had “no obligation to remind the court of the State’s duty [to bring a defendant „to trial within one year], nor is he required to take any affirmative action to see that he is brought to trial within the period.”’ Leek v. State, 878 N.E.2d 276, 277 (tod. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000Silkey, 690 N.E.2d at 334 , (quoting Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc., 641 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)), rev’d on other grounds, 669 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1996), reh’g denied (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 166 Ind.App. 34 , 333 N.E.2d 886 (1975). 2000Silkey, 690 N.E.2d at 334 , ( quoting Wior v. Anchor Industries, Inc., 641 N.E.2d 1275, 1278 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)), rev'd on other grounds, 669 N.E.2d 172 (Ind.1996), reh'g denied (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted); Kiyose v. Trustees of Indiana Univ., 166 Ind.App. 34 , 333 N.E.2d 886 (1975). | 2 | 1997–2000 |
Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. Younge
green
2 sentences1976Frost v. Tarr (1876), 53 Ind. 390 ; Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. Younge (1937), 103 Ind. App. 439 , 8 N.E.2d 426 ; Hurd v. Ball (1957), 128 Ind. App. 278 , 143 N.E.2d 458 . 1976Frost v. Tarr (1876), 53 Ind. 390 ; Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. Younge (1937), 103 Ind. App. 439 , 8 N.E.2d 426 ; Hurd v. Ball (1957), 128 Ind. App. 278 , 143 N.E.2d 458 . | 2 | 1975–1976 |
Frost v. Tarr
green
2 sentences1976Frost v. Tarr (1876), 53 Ind. 390 ; Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. Younge (1937), 103 Ind. App. 439 , 8 N.E.2d 426 ; Hurd v. Ball (1957), 128 Ind. App. 278 , 143 N.E.2d 458 . 1975Frost v. Tarr (1876), 53 Ind. 390 ; Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. Younge (1937), 103 Ind. App. 439 , 8 N.E.2d 426 ; Hurd v. Ball (1957), 128 Ind. App. 278 , 143 N.E.2d 458 . | 2 | 1975–1976 |
Itt Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Brady
green
2 sentences1976Defendants argue that the agreement alleged in the amended complaint is analogous to a contract of employment which was determined to be within the one year clause of the Statute of Frauds in the case of ITT Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Brady (1967), 141 Ind. App. 506 , 230 N.E.2d 114 . 1976Defendants argue that the agreement alleged in the amended complaint is analogous to a contract of employment which was determined to be within the one year clause of the Statute of Frauds in the case of ITT Cannon Electric, Inc. v. Brady (1967), 141 Ind. App. 506 , 230 N.E.2d 114 . | 2 | 1975–1976 |
Hurd Etc. v. Ball
green
2 sentences1976Frost v. Tarr (1876), 53 Ind. 390 ; Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. Younge (1937), 103 Ind. App. 439 , 8 N.E.2d 426 ; Hurd v. Ball (1957), 128 Ind. App. 278 , 143 N.E.2d 458 . 1976Frost v. Tarr (1876), 53 Ind. 390 ; Holcomb & Hoke Manufacturing Co. v. Younge (1937), 103 Ind. App. 439 , 8 N.E.2d 426 ; Hurd v. Ball (1957), 128 Ind. App. 278 , 143 N.E.2d 458 . | 2 | 1975–1976 |
Miller v. State
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Henderson v. American Optical Co.
green
1 sentence1982Henderson v. American Optical Co., (1981) Ind.App., 418 N.E.2d 549, 553 . | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Rosell v. Dausman
green
1 sentence1980See: In re Adoption of Thornton (1976), Ind.App., 358 N.E.2d 157 ; Rosell v. Dausman, supra. Although Herman admits in his reply brief that he had failed to maintain significant communication with the child for nine months following separation from natural mother and prior to the time of his arrest, he proposes that his arrest on July 7, 1974 and continuous incarceration serve to toll the one-year requirement of IC 1971, 31-3-1-6(g)(1), supra. He further complains that his ability to communicate with the child was impaired because Mr. and Mrs. Arnold moved several times without notifying him. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
In Re Adoption of Thornton
green
1 sentence1980See: In re Adoption of Thornton (1976), Ind.App., 358 N.E.2d 157 ; Rosell v. Dausman, supra. Although Herman admits in his reply brief that he had failed to maintain significant communication with the child for nine months following separation from natural mother and prior to the time of his arrest, he proposes that his arrest on July 7, 1974 and continuous incarceration serve to toll the one-year requirement of IC 1971, 31-3-1-6(g)(1), supra. He further complains that his ability to communicate with the child was impaired because Mr. and Mrs. Arnold moved several times without notifying him. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Grow
green
1 sentence1971In State v. Grow (1970), 255 Ind. 183, 186 , 263 N. E. 277 , 278, this court said: *666 “Where a change of venue from the county has been granted, we have held the time begins to run anew . . (our emphasis) The court in the latter case was concerned with the one year rule where defendant was held by recognizance but both have the purpose of speedy trial, and are parts of the same rule. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.