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 1980–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Simon v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024Id. 2024“This evaluation ought to focus on the essential elements of the whole cause of action, rather than on the issues one party or the other forecasts will be the most hotly contested given the anticipated proofs.” Id. [27] Incubacol claims that because there is a clear conflict in the laws of Indiana and Florida—Indiana law requires the defendant to be a manufacturer while Florida law provides that “every party in the distribution chain of a defective product may be held liable,” see Incubacol’s Br. p. 33—the presumption is that the traditional lex loci delicti rule (the place of the wrong) appli | 2 | 3 |
Tompkins v. Isbellgreen1 sentence2014See Tompkins v. Isbell, 543 N.E.2d 680, 681-682 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (finding, in a vehicular collision case, that the last act necessary to make the defendant liable took place in Illinois, that the parties’ conduct in operating their motor vehicles prior to the collision will be the focus of attention to determine liability, and that this conduct was governed by the rules of the road of the state of Illinois, and holding that the trial court correctly determined that the place of the tort had extensive connection with the legal action and thus the doctrine of lex loci retained *829 vitality), t | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Estate of Bruckgreen2 sentences1998Matter of Estate of Bruck, 632 N.E.2d 745, 747 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994). 1998Matter of Estate of Bruck, 632 N.E.2d 745, 747 (Ind.Ct.App.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 |
|---|---|---|
Hubbard Manufacturing Co. v. Greeson
green
2 sentences2014Id. 2014Id. | 6 | 2004–2014 |
Babcock v. Jackson
green
2 sentences1986Many jurisdictions have abandoned the lex loci delicti doctrine in favor of the more flexible "modern rule" or "most significant relationship approach" discussed in Babcock v. Jackson (1963), 12 N.Y.2d 473 , 191 N.E.2d 279 , 240 N.Y.S.2d 743 . 1986Many jurisdictions have abandoned the lex loci delicti doctrine in favor of the more flexible "modern rule" or "most significant relationship approach" discussed in Babcock v. Jackson (1963), 12 N.Y.2d 473 , 191 N.E.2d 279 , 240 N.Y.S.2d 743 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Wabash Railroad Co. v. Hassett
green
2 sentences1986That exception requires application of the substantive law of the forum state where the law of the place of the wrong is “... against good morals or natural justice or prejudicial to the general interests of the citizens of [the forum state].” Wabash Railroad Co., 170 Ind. at 381 , 83 N.E. at 709 . 1986That exception requires application of the substantive law of the forum state where the law of the place of the wrong is “... against good morals or natural justice or prejudicial to the general interests of the citizens of [the forum state].” Wabash Railroad Co., 170 Ind. at 381 , 83 N.E. at 709 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Clow Corp. v. Ross Township School Corp.
green
1 sentence1980Plaintiffs concede that the Indiana Tort Claims Act prescribes procedures for and certain limitations on actions which arise under the common law and other statutes in which the defendant is the State of Indiana, State v. Daley, (1975) 165 Ind. App. 513 , 332 N.E.2d 845 , and, consequently, any recovery by Plaintiffs would be limited to $300,000 under Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-4, although recovery under the relevant Illinois statutes is otherwise unlimited. [3] The State incorrectly cites Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company, supra, and Clow Corporation v. Ross Township School Corporation | 1 | 1980–1980 |
State v. Daley
green
2 sentences1980Plaintiffs concede that the Indiana Tort Claims Act prescribes procedures for and certain limitations on actions which arise under the common law and other statutes in which the defendant is the State of Indiana, State v. Daley, (1975) 165 Ind. App. 513 , 332 N.E.2d 845 , and, consequently, any recovery by Plaintiffs would be limited to $300,000 under Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-4, although recovery under the relevant Illinois statutes is otherwise unlimited. [3] The State incorrectly cites Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company, supra, and Clow Corporation v. Ross Township School Corporation 1980Plaintiffs concede that the Indiana Tort Claims Act prescribes procedures for and certain limitations on actions which arise under the common law and other statutes in which the defendant is the State of Indiana, State v. Daley, (1975) 165 Ind. App. 513 , 332 N.E.2d 845 , and, consequently, any recovery by Plaintiffs would be limited to $300,000 under Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-4, although recovery under the relevant Illinois statutes is otherwise unlimited. [3] The State incorrectly cites Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company, supra, and Clow Corporation v. Ross Township School Corporation | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. Reed
neutral
2 sentences1980Plaintiffs concede that the Indiana Tort Claims Act prescribes procedures for and certain limitations on actions which arise under the common law and other statutes in which the defendant is the State of Indiana, State v. Daley, (1975) 165 Ind. App. 513 , 332 N.E.2d 845 , and, consequently, any recovery by Plaintiffs would be limited to $300,000 under Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-4, although recovery under the relevant Illinois statutes is otherwise unlimited. [3] The State incorrectly cites Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company, supra, and Clow Corporation v. Ross Township School Corporation 1980Plaintiffs concede that the Indiana Tort Claims Act prescribes procedures for and certain limitations on actions which arise under the common law and other statutes in which the defendant is the State of Indiana, State v. Daley, (1975) 165 Ind. App. 513 , 332 N.E.2d 845 , and, consequently, any recovery by Plaintiffs would be limited to $300,000 under Ind. Code 34-4-16.5-4, although recovery under the relevant Illinois statutes is otherwise unlimited. [3] The State incorrectly cites Baltimore and Ohio Southwestern Railway Company, supra, and Clow Corporation v. Ross Township School Corporation | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.