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.
12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Pricegreen2 sentences2008State v. Price, 724 N.E.2d 670, 675 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied. 2004First, as the State correctly notes, we have already considered this issue in Price, 724 N.E.2d at 675-76 (wherein we determined that 1.C. § 9-19-10-2 does not violate the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution). | 5 | 5 |
Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n v. Carlberg Ex Rel. Carlberggreen2 sentences2014Athletic Ass’n, Inc. v. Carlberg, 694 N.E.2d 222, 240 (Ind. 1997) (upholding under an Equal Privileges and Immunities challenge the IHSAA’s transfer rule limiting athletic eligibility of transferees, in part, because of the financial cost of monitoring the motives of transferees); Hochstedler v. St. 2014Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Carlberg, 694 N.E.2d 222, 240 (Ind. 1997) (upholding under an Equal Privileges and Immunities challenge the IHSAA's transfer rule limiting athletic eligibility of transferees, in part, because of the financial cost of monitoring the motives of transferees); Hochstedler v. St. | 2 | 2 |
Smith v. Indiana Department of Correctiongreen1 sentence2015However, again, he has requested only money damages; he has not pursued any type of declaratory or injunctive relief. 6 As we held in Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction, 871 N.E.2d 975, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied, there is “no express or implied right of action for monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution.” See also, City of Indianapolis v. Cox, 20 N.E.3d 201, 212 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (holding there was no private right of action for monetary damages for an alleged violation of Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Rondon v. Stategreen2 sentences2015This is because “‘the time of a crime is selected as an act of free will by the offender.’” Id. (quoting Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506, 513 (Ind. 1999)). 2015This is because ‘“the time of a crime is selected as an act of free will by the offender.’” Id. (quoting Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506, 513 (Ind.1999)). | 1 | 1 |
The City of Indianapolis, Indiana, and the Indianapolis Department of Public Works v. Evelyn Coxgreen1 sentence2015However, again, he has requested only money damages; he has not pursued any type of declaratory or injunctive relief. 6 As we held in Smith v. Indiana Department of Correction, 871 N.E.2d 975, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.2007), trans. denied, there is “no express or implied right of action for monetary damages under the Indiana Constitution.” See also, City of Indianapolis v. Cox, 20 N.E.3d 201, 212 (Ind.Ct.App.2014) (holding there was no private right of action for monetary damages for an alleged violation of Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Bruce Schaadt v. State of Indianagreen2 sentences2015See Schaadt v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1, 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2015) (holding that the savings clause did not violate the equal privileges and immunities clause of the Indiana Constitution where the defendant would have faced lesser sentencing ranges had he committed his offense after July 1, 2014). 2015This is because ‘“the time of a crime is selected as an act of free will by the offender.’” Id. (quoting Rondon v. State, 711 N.E.2d 506, 513 (Ind.1999)). | 1 | 1 |
Collins v. Daygreen1 sentence1999When analyzing an equal privileges claim under Article 1, Section 23, this Court applies a two step analysis as established in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72, 80 (Ind.1994). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Monarch Beverage Company, Inc. v. David Cook, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Indiana Alcohol and Tobacco Commission
green
1 sentence2017In Cook, 48 N.E.3d at 325 , Monarch raised an Equal Privileges and Immunities claim, but that claim was not the same one we see here. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
League of Women Voters of Indiana, Inc. v. Rokita
green
1 sentence2015League of Women Voters, 929 N.E.2d at 769-70 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.