12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1943–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Clarenda Love v. Bruce Lovegreen1 sentence2015Love v. Love, 10 N.E.3d 1005, 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Madisongreen2 sentences2008The judge may receive evidence ... but the object of the proceeding is to evaluate the action taken by the agency.”); State v. Madison, 163 Vt. 360 , 658 A.2d 536, 543 (1995) (the term “review de novo ” contemplates a nonde-ferential review that generally relies on, but is not restricted to, the record, while a “hearing de novo ” contemplates an entire trial). 2008The judge may receive evidence ... but the object of the proceeding is to evaluate the action taken by the agency.”); State v. Madison, 163 Vt. 360 , 658 A.2d 536, 543 (1995) (the term “review de novo ” contemplates a nonde-ferential review that generally relies on, but is not restricted to, the record, while a “hearing de novo ” contemplates an entire trial). | 1 | 1 |
State Contracting v. Dept. of Transp.green1 sentence2008The hearing is de novo as to all parties to the proceeding and the award of the full board supersedes for all purposes the award of the hearing member.” (Emphasis supplied.) And see, e.g., State Contracting and Engineering Corp. v. Dep’t of Transp., 709 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla.Ct.App. 1998) (“In this context [a bid protest before a state agency], the phrase “de novo hearing” is used to describe a form of intra-agency review. | 1 | 1 |
Northwest Calf Farms, Inc. v. Poiriergreen2 sentences1997Northwest Calf Farms, Inc. v. Poirier, 499 N.E.2d 1165, 1170 (Ind. Ct.App.1986), trans. denied; Johnson v. Sprague, 614 N.E.2d 585 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Cap Gemini America, Inc. v. Judd, 597 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). 1997Northwest Calf Farms, Inc. v. Poirier, 499 N.E.2d 1165, 1170 (Ind. Ct.App.1986), trans. denied; Johnson v. Sprague, 614 N.E.2d 585 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Cap Gemini America, Inc. v. Judd, 597 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
American Maize Products Co. v. Nichiporchikgreen2 sentences1969The board apparently did not feel that this case came within the principles heretofore announced by this court in the cases of Standard Cabinet Co. v. Landgrave (1921), 76 Ind. App. 593, 595, 596 , 132 N. E. 661 and American Maize Products v. Nichiporchik (1940), 108 Ind. App. 502, 510, 511 , 29 N. E. 2d 801 . 1969The board apparently did not feel that this case came within the principles heretofore announced by this court in the cases of Standard Cabinet Co. v. Landgrave (1921), 76 Ind. App. 593, 595, 596 , 132 N. E. 661 and American Maize Products v. Nichiporchik (1940), 108 Ind. App. 502, 510, 511 , 29 N. E. 2d 801 . | 1 | 1 |
Standard Cabinet Co. v. Landgravegreen2 sentences1969The board apparently did not feel that this case came within the principles heretofore announced by this court in the cases of Standard Cabinet Co. v. Landgrave (1921), 76 Ind. App. 593, 595, 596 , 132 N. E. 661 and American Maize Products v. Nichiporchik (1940), 108 Ind. App. 502, 510, 511 , 29 N. E. 2d 801 . 1969The board apparently did not feel that this case came within the principles heretofore announced by this court in the cases of Standard Cabinet Co. v. Landgrave (1921), 76 Ind. App. 593, 595, 596 , 132 N. E. 661 and American Maize Products v. Nichiporchik (1940), 108 Ind. App. 502, 510, 511 , 29 N. E. 2d 801 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jeffrey Crider v. Christina Crider
green
1 sentence2015Id. [23] The trial court awarded Wife attorney’s fees based on “the circumstances in this cause of action and the disparity of income.” (App. at 17.) Husband asserts the award was error because “[t]he only disparity of income is that imputed by the court’s abuse of discretion in its imputation of income to [Husband].” (Amended Appellant’s Br. at 16.) As there was no abuse of discretion in the imputation of income, we cannot say the award of attorney’s fees was error. 7 Presumption of Equal Distribution [24] The division of marital property is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Curtis v. Roob
green
2 sentences2010The hearing is de novo as to all parties to the proceeding and the award of the full board supersedes for all purposes the award of the hearing member." Curtis, 891 N.E.2d at 580-81 . 2010The hearing is de novo as to all parties to the proceeding and the award of the full board supersedes for all purposes the award of the hearing member." Curtis, 891 N.E.2d at 580-81 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Dempsey v. Carter
green
1 sentence2005We will find the trial court's award in error if it is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and ..." Dempsey, 797 N.E.2d at 275 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Van Winkle v. Nash
green
2 sentences2004Weiss asserts the award was error because the term "costs" in Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1 and T.R. 54(D) "is strictly interpreted to include only filing fees and statutory witness fees." (Appellant's Br. at 15.) Even assuming for purposes of argument Weiss' interpretation of the term "costs" is correct, see, e.g., Van Winkle v. Nash, 761 N.E.2d 856 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), we find no error as the "costs" were awarded pursuant to the contract between the Harpers and Weiss and not the code provision or trial rule. 2004Weiss asserts the award was error because the term "costs" in Ind.Code § 34-52-1-1 and T.R. 54(D) "is strictly interpreted to include only filing fees and statutory witness fees." (Appellant's Br. at 15.) Even assuming for purposes of argument Weiss' interpretation of the term "eosts" is correct, see, e.g., Van Winkle v. Nash, 761 N.E.2d 856 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), we find no error as the "costs" were awarded pursuant to the contract between the Harpers and Weiss and not the code provision or trial rule. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Emerson v. Markle
green
1 sentence2000In Emerson v. Markle, 539 N.E.2d at 40-41 , we determined that a punitive damage award which was 150 times larger than the actual damage award was not excessive. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
green
2 sentences1998In BMW, the Supreme Court held that the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award might be “the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.” 517 U.S. at 575 , 116 S.Ct. at 1599 . 1998In BMW, the Supreme Court held that the most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award might be “the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct.” 517 U.S. at 575 , 116 S.Ct. at 1599 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Johnson v. Sprague
green
2 sentences1997Northwest Calf Farms, Inc. v. Poirier, 499 N.E.2d 1165, 1170 (Ind. Ct.App.1986), trans. denied; Johnson v. Sprague, 614 N.E.2d 585 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Cap Gemini America, Inc. v. Judd, 597 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). 1997Northwest Calf Farms, Inc. v. Poirier, 499 N.E.2d 1165, 1170 (Ind. Ct.App.1986), trans. denied; Johnson v. Sprague, 614 N.E.2d 585 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Cap Gemini America, Inc. v. Judd, 597 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Cap Gemini America, Inc. v. Judd
green
2 sentences1997Northwest Calf Farms, Inc. v. Poirier, 499 N.E.2d 1165, 1170 (Ind. Ct.App.1986), trans. denied; Johnson v. Sprague, 614 N.E.2d 585 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Cap Gemini America, Inc. v. Judd, 597 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). 1997Northwest Calf Farms, Inc. v. Poirier, 499 N.E.2d 1165, 1170 (Ind. Ct.App.1986), trans. denied; Johnson v. Sprague, 614 N.E.2d 585 (Ind.Ct.App.1993); Cap Gemini America, Inc. v. Judd, 597 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Maddox v. Wright
green
1 sentence1988Maddox v. Wright (1986), Ind.App., 489 N.E.2d 133, 138 , reh. den. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
First National Bank of Danville v. Reynolds
green
1 sentence1988First National Bank of Danville v. Reynolds (1986), Ind.App., 491 N.E.2d 218, 223 , trans. den. (meritless appeal, without more, does not justify sanctions under A.R. 15). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Briggs v. Clinton County Bank & Trust Co. of Frankfort
green
2 sentences1984Nonetheless, we .recognize one aspect of the bad faith exception, one which the Hicks emphasize is significant here, is that an award under such exception is “also designed to reimburse a prevailing party who has been unduly subjected to great expense.” Briggs, 452 N.E.2d at 1014 . 1984Nonetheless, we recognize one aspect of the bad faith exception, one which the Hicks emphasize is significant here, is that an award under such exception is "also designed to reimburse a prevailing party who has been unduly subjected to great expense." Briggs, 452 N.E.2d at 1014 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co.
green
1 sentence1943The case comes to this court by petition to transfer under authority of Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. (1940), 217 Ind. 93 , 26 N. E. (2d) 399. *655 *654 As has already been noted, the award of the hearing member was against the appellant Lorrine Harrison. *655 The review by the full board was had on the applications of the employer and the appellee Gertrude Johnson. | 1 | 1943–1943 |
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.