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.
15 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of McMahon v. McMahongreen2 sentences2024Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DR-157 | September 6, 2024 Page 5 of 10 Carter-McMahon v. McMahon, 815 N.E.2d 170, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “[O]ur objective when construing the meaning of a rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intent underlying the rule.” Id. 2024Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-DR-157 | September 6, 2024 Page 5 of 10 Carter-McMahon v. McMahon, 815 N.E.2d 170, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “[O]ur objective when construing the meaning of a rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intent underlying the rule.” Id. | 4 | 7 |
Turner v. Board of Aviation Commissionersgreen2 sentences2015See Turner v. Bd. of Aviation Comm’rs, 743 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied. 2015See Turner v. Bd. of Aviation Comm’rs, 743 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. | 3 | 3 |
In re the Paternity of V.A., (Minor Child), R.A. v. B.Y.green2 sentences2023“Our objective in construing their meaning is to give effect to the intent underlying the rule.” In re Paternity of V.A., 10 N.E.3d 61, 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). 2015In re Paternity of V.A., 10 N.E.3d 61, 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “[A]s with statutes, our objective when construing the meaning of a rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intent underlying the rule.” Carter-McMahon v. McMahon, 815 N.E.2d 170, 175 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). | 2 | 3 |
Marcos Coronado v. Connie Coronadogreen2 sentences2026In construing a rule’s meaning, “our objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent underlying the rule.” Id. (citing Coronado, 243 N.E.3d at 1124). 2026In construing a rule’s meaning, “our objective is to ascertain and give effect to the intent underlying the rule.” Id. (citing Coronado, 243 N.E.3d at 1124). | 1 | 2 |
Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc. v. AutoXchange. Com., Inc.green1 sentence2014Dreyer & Reinbold, Inc. v. AutoXchange.com., Inc., 771 N.E.2d 764, 767 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.