12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Becker v. Kreileingreen2 sentences2013See Becker v. Kreilein, 770 N.E.2d 315, 318 (Ind. 2002) (stating that aforementioned five exceptions “are the only bases for establishing a duty of care by a principal who acts through an independent contractor”). 2013See Becker v. Kreilein, 770 N.E.2d 315, 318 (Ind.2002) (stating that aforementioned five exceptions “are the only bases for establishing a duty of care by a principal who acts through an independent contractor”). | 2 | 2 |
Clifford and Judith Ann Garrett v. Paul and Linda Speargreen1 sentence2026See Garrett v. Spear, 998 N.E.2d 297 , 304 n.5 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (summarizing doctrine of title by acquiescence). | 1 | 1 |
Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Khayyatagreen1 sentence2000Governmental Interinsurance Exchange v. Khayyata, 526 N.E.2d 745, 747 (Ind.Ct.App.1988). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Barnes v. Antich
green
2 sentences2012We acknowledge that this point appears to have been rendered moot by the passage of subsection (18) of Ind. Code § 34-4-16.5 -3 [now Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3 (19)], which grants a governmental entity immunity under the Tort Claims Act for the operation of ―an enhanced emergency communication [or ‗911‘] system.‖ Accord Barnes v. Antich, 700 N.E.2d 262 , 266 n.6 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (holding that ―a plain reading of Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-3(18) leads inescapably to the conclusion that the legislature intended to afford immunity from claims arising out of a municipality‘s operation and use of [a ‗911‘ 2012We acknowledge that this point appears to have been rendered moot by the passage of subsection (18) of Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-3 [now Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3(19)], which grants a governmental entity immunity under the Tort Claims Act for the operation of “an enhanced emergency communication [or '911] system.” Accord Barnes v. Antich, 700 N.E.2d 262 , 266 n. 6 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (holding that "a plain reading of Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-3(18) leads inescapably to the conclusion that the legislature intended to afford immunity from claims arising out of a municipality’s operation and use of [a ‘911’ service | 3 | 1999–2012 |
Benton v. City of Oakland City
green
2 sentences2012Benton, 721 N.E.2d at 231 n.12. 17 town‘s motion for summary judgment on the basis of common law immunity for firefighting, and we affirmed. 2012Benton, 721 N.E.2d at 231 n. 12. . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
City of Tell City v. Noble
green
2 sentences1988It provides in pertinent part as follows: A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of his employment is not liable if a loss results from: * L * #k Ld % (6) The performance of a discretionary function; In City of Tell City v. Noble (1986), Ind.App., 489 N.E.2d 958 , trons. denied, this court decided whether the decision by a governmental entity to erect traffic control devices at a particular location is a discretionary act, thus affording the governmental entity immunity under the above statute. 1986CODE 34-4-16.5-8, reads in pertinent part as follows: "A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of his employment is not liable if a loss results from: # * a a LJ # (6) the performance of a discretionary function; (7) the adoption and enforcement of or failure to adopt or enforce a law (including rules and regulations), unless the act of enforcement constitutes false arrest or false imprisonment...." Subsequent to the trial in the instant case, this court rendered its decision in City of Tell City v. Noble, supra. In Tell City, supra, this court decided the question of whet | 2 | 1986–1988 |
Hinshaw v. Board of Com'rs of Jay County
green
1 sentence2018Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(10) would be useless in situations involving an independent contractor if it did not apply to non-delegable duties, and we "presume that the legislature did not enact a useless provision." Hinshaw , 611 N.E.2d at 638 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. Alexander
green
1 sentence2012Id. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Geyer v. City of Logansport
green
2 sentences1980Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), 267 Ind. 334 , 370 N.E.2d 333, 337 ; England v. City of Richmond (7th Cir. 1969), 419 F.2d 1156 . 1980Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), 267 Ind. 334 , 370 N.E.2d 333, 337 ; England v. City of Richmond (7th Cir. 1969), 419 F.2d 1156 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Raymond England v. The City of Richmond, Indiana
neutral
2 sentences1980Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), 267 Ind. 334 , 370 N.E.2d 333, 337 ; England v. City of Richmond (7th Cir. 1969), 419 F.2d 1156 . 1980Geyer v. City of Logansport (1977), 267 Ind. 334 , 370 N.E.2d 333, 337 ; England v. City of Richmond (7th Cir.1969), 419 F.2d 1156 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.