14 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pence v. Stategreen2 sentences2003Standing is similar to, although not identical to, the real party in interest requirement of Ind. Trial Rule 17. 2 Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind.1995), reh'g denied. 1999“Standing is similar to, though not identical with, the real party in interest requirement of [Indiana] Trial Rule 17.” Pence v. State (1995) Ind., 652 N.E.2d 486, 487 , reh’g denied. | 3 | 6 |
Hosler Ex Rel. Hosler v. Caterpillar, Inc.green2 sentences2003However, they are both "requirements intended to insure that the party before the court has the substantive right to enforce the claim being asserted." Hosler v. Caterpillar, Inc., 710 N.E.2d 193, 197 (Ind.Ct. 2002However, they are both "requirements intended to insure that the party before the court has the substantive right to enforce the claim being asserted." Hosler, 710 N.E.2d at 197 . | 2 | 3 |
Hammes v. Brumleygreen2 sentences2015Hammes v. Brumley, 659 N.E.2d 1021, 1029 (Ind.1995). 2015Hammes v. Brumley, 659 N.E.2d 1021, 1029 (Ind.1995). | 2 | 2 |
Beason-Strange-Claussen v. City of Hammondgreen2 sentences2016Beason-Strange-Claussen v. City of Hammond, 701 N.E.2d 1288, 1290 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. 2000Similar to the concept of “standing,” the point of the real party in interest requirement “is to insure that the party before the court has a substantive right to enforce the claim that is being made in the litigation.” Beason-Strange-Claussen, 701 N.E.2d at 1290 . | 1 | 2 |
Michael Fish v. 2444 Acquisitions, LLCgreen1 sentence2016II Subject Matter Jurisdiction [4] “Subject matter jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which any particular proceeding belongs.” K.S. v. State, 849 1 Throughout this litigation, Kuhn has referred to subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and the real party in interest rule as interchangeable concepts, see Fish v. 2444 Acquisitions, LLC, 46 N.E.3d 1261, 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (distinguishing subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and the real party in interest rule), trans. denied, but the brunt of his argument on appeal seems to address the issue of | 1 | 1 |
Cynthia L. Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association, as successor by merger to Chase Home Financegreen1 sentence2015In general, “ ‘[a] void judgment is a nullity, and typically occurs where the court lacks subject matter or personal jurisdiction.’ ” Seleme v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 982 N.E.2d 299, 304 (Ind.Ct.App.2012) (quoting 22B Stephen E. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Reinking v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals of Marion County
green
1 sentence2003We acknowledged that the purpose of standing and the real party in interest requirement is to prevent the filing of meritless and frivolous suits, and added, that, "in order to have standing, [the plaintiffs] must show that they are the real party in interest with a substantial, direct, or immediate interest in the outcome of the suit." Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Dudley v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
green
2 sentences1998They further cite Appeal of Sears, Roebuck & Co., 123 Ind. App. 358 , 109 N.E.2d 620 (1952), as establishing a common law right permitting taxpayers to challenge transactions involving municipalities. *904 Although not identical, standing is similar to the real party in interest requirement of Ind.Trial Rule 17. 1998They further cite Appeal of Sears, Roebuck & Co., 123 Ind. App. 358 , 109 N.E.2d 620 (1952), as establishing a common law right permitting taxpayers to challenge transactions involving municipalities. *904 Although not identical, standing is similar to the real party in interest requirement of Ind.Trial Rule 17. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.