12 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2005 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 |
|---|---|---|
Estate of Pickens v. Pickensgreen2 sentences1971This is especially true in light of the explicit pronouncement in Pickens wherein Judge Hunter, speaking for our Supreme Court, stated: "There can be no question that the doctrine of interspousal immunity in tort actions is the law in Indiana." ( 263 N.E.2d at 153 ) Counsel for the parties to this appeal, both in their briefs and at oral argument, have made excellent arguments with regard to public policy, reason and logic for and against the doctrine of interspousal immunity. 1971This is especially true in light of the explicit pronouncement in Pickens wherein Judge Hunter, speaking for our Supreme Court, stated: "There can be no question that the doctrine of interspousal immunity in tort actions is the law in Indiana." ( 263 N.E.2d at 153 ) Counsel for the parties to this appeal, both in their briefs and at oral argument, have made excellent arguments with regard to public policy, reason and logic for and against the doctrine of interspousal immunity. | 1 | 2 |
Hunter v. Livingstongreen2 sentences1993See Troue v. Marker (1969), 253 Ind. 284, 290 , 252 N.E.2d 800, 804 ("[The change in the legal and social status of women in our society forces us to recognize a change [in the common lawl."); Hunter v. Livingston (1955), 125 Ind.App. 422, 429 , 123 N.E.2d 912, 915 (doctrine of interspousal immunity "contrary to the true spirit and intent of the acts passed for the emancipation of women in an enlightened civilization"). 1993See Troue v. Marker (1969), 253 Ind. 284, 290 , 252 N.E.2d 800, 804 ("[The change in the legal and social status of women in our society forces us to recognize a change [in the common lawl."); Hunter v. Livingston (1955), 125 Ind.App. 422, 429 , 123 N.E.2d 912, 915 (doctrine of interspousal immunity "contrary to the true spirit and intent of the acts passed for the emancipation of women in an enlightened civilization"). | 1 | 1 |
Troue v. Markergreen2 sentences1993See Troue v. Marker (1969), 253 Ind. 284, 290 , 252 N.E.2d 800, 804 ("[The change in the legal and social status of women in our society forces us to recognize a change [in the common lawl."); Hunter v. Livingston (1955), 125 Ind.App. 422, 429 , 123 N.E.2d 912, 915 (doctrine of interspousal immunity "contrary to the true spirit and intent of the acts passed for the emancipation of women in an enlightened civilization"). 1993See Troue v. Marker (1969), 253 Ind. 284, 290 , 252 N.E.2d 800, 804 ("[The change in the legal and social status of women in our society forces us to recognize a change [in the common lawl."); Hunter v. Livingston (1955), 125 Ind.App. 422, 429 , 123 N.E.2d 912, 915 (doctrine of interspousal immunity "contrary to the true spirit and intent of the acts passed for the emancipation of women in an enlightened civilization"). | 1 | 1 |
Stream Pollution Control Board v. United States Steel, Inc.green1 sentence1985Accord, Stream Pollution Control Board of Indiana v. United States Steel, Inc. (N.D.Ind. 1974) 62 F.R.D. 31 , aff'd (7th Cir.1975) 512 F.2d 1086 ; State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Brooks v. Robinsongreen2 sentences1972See, Brooks v. Robinson, supra. In her Application for Transfer, petitioner contends that the doctrine of interspousal immunity should not apply to the facts of this case because both the injury and the filing of the complaint occurred prior to the marriage. 1972See, Brooks v. Robinson, supra. In her Application for Transfer, petitioner contends that the doctrine of interspousal immunity should not apply to the facts of this case because both the injury and the filing of the complaint occurred prior to the marriage. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2005In 1972, this Court in Brooks v. Robinson, 259 Ind. 16 , 284 N.E.2d 794 (1972), abolished the doctrine of interspousal immunity, noting the absence of legislation. 2005In 1972, this Court in Brooks v. Robinson, 259 Ind. 16 , 284 N.E.2d 794 (1972), abolished the doctrine of interspousal immunity, noting the absence of legislation. | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lombardo v. Lombardo
green
1 sentence2005Lombardo v. Lombardo, 192 F.Supp.2d 885 (N.D.Ind.2002). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
United States v. Charles Freeman
green
2 sentences1972The trial court’s responsibility, indeed, its duty, to properly instruct the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the rules governing the weight of evidence will remain unchanged, and, as was stated in United States v. Freeman (2d Cir. 1966), 357 F. 2d 606, 620 , “. . . it cannot be presumed that juries will check their common sense at the courtroom door.” It is next urged by counsel for defendant-appellee that if the doctrine of interspousal immunity is to be abolished, the courts should wait for legislative sanction for such action. 1972The trial court's responsibility, indeed, its duty, to properly instruct the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the rules governing the weight of evidence will remain unchanged, and, as was stated in United States v. Freeman (2d Cir.1966), 357 F.2d 606, 620 , "... it cannot be presumed that juries will check their common sense at the courtroom door." It is next urged by counsel for defendant-appellee that if the doctrine of interspousal immunity is to be abolished, the courts should wait for legislative sanction for such action. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.