case is within rule in Indiana

11 Indiana opinions name it 3 courts 1851–1983 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.

Followed or applied (0)

Case	Followed	Cited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
VanGorder v. Smith green ind · 1885 2 sentences 1895Van Gorder v. Smith, 99 Ind. 404 , and cases cited; Stowell v. Hastings, 59 Vt. 494 , 59 Am. 1887VanGorder v. Smith, supra, and cases cited; Stowell v. Stowell, 8 Atl.	2	1887–1895
Silver v. George neutral hawapp · 1980 1 sentence 1983Identifying themselves as among the "limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance" the survey was made, they cite Roberts v. Ball, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 , Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) 363 $o.2d 1156, Silver v. George, (Hawaii Ct.App.1980) 1 Haw.App. 331 , 618 P.2d 1157 , Rozny v. Marnul, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , and Stotlar v. Hester, (N.M.Ct.App.1978) 92 N.M. 26 , 582 P.2d 403 , to demonstrate that this case is within the rule of section 552.	1	1983–1983
Stotlar v. Hester green nmctapp · 1978 2 sentences 1983Identifying themselves as among the "limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance" the survey was made, they cite Roberts v. Ball, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 , Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) 363 $o.2d 1156, Silver v. George, (Hawaii Ct.App.1980) 1 Haw.App. 331 , 618 P.2d 1157 , Rozny v. Marnul, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , and Stotlar v. Hester, (N.M.Ct.App.1978) 92 N.M. 26 , 582 P.2d 403 , to demonstrate that this case is within the rule of section 552. 1983Identifying themselves as among the "limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance" the survey was made, they cite Roberts v. Ball, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 , Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) 363 $o.2d 1156, Silver v. George, (Hawaii Ct.App.1980) 1 Haw.App. 331 , 618 P.2d 1157 , Rozny v. Marnul, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , and Stotlar v. Hester, (N.M.Ct.App.1978) 92 N.M. 26 , 582 P.2d 403 , to demonstrate that this case is within the rule of section 552.	1	1983–1983
Silver v. George green hawapp · 1980 1 sentence 1983Identifying themselves as among the "limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance" the survey was made, they cite Roberts v. Ball, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 , Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) 363 $o.2d 1156, Silver v. George, (Hawaii Ct.App.1980) 1 Haw.App. 331 , 618 P.2d 1157 , Rozny v. Marnul, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , and Stotlar v. Hester, (N.M.Ct.App.1978) 92 N.M. 26 , 582 P.2d 403 , to demonstrate that this case is within the rule of section 552.	1	1983–1983
Roberts v. Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz green calctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1983Identifying themselves as among the "limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance" the survey was made, they cite Roberts v. Ball, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 , Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) 363 $o.2d 1156, Silver v. George, (Hawaii Ct.App.1980) 1 Haw.App. 331 , 618 P.2d 1157 , Rozny v. Marnul, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , and Stotlar v. Hester, (N.M.Ct.App.1978) 92 N.M. 26 , 582 P.2d 403 , to demonstrate that this case is within the rule of section 552. 1983Identifying themselves as among the "limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance" the survey was made, they cite Roberts v. Ball, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 , Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) 363 $o.2d 1156, Silver v. George, (Hawaii Ct.App.1980) 1 Haw.App. 331 , 618 P.2d 1157 , Rozny v. Marnul, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , and Stotlar v. Hester, (N.M.Ct.App.1978) 92 N.M. 26 , 582 P.2d 403 , to demonstrate that this case is within the rule of section 552.	1	1983–1983
Rozny v. Marnul green ill · 1969 2 sentences 1983Identifying themselves as among the "limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance" the survey was made, they cite Roberts v. Ball, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 , Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) 363 $o.2d 1156, Silver v. George, (Hawaii Ct.App.1980) 1 Haw.App. 331 , 618 P.2d 1157 , Rozny v. Marnul, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , and Stotlar v. Hester, (N.M.Ct.App.1978) 92 N.M. 26 , 582 P.2d 403 , to demonstrate that this case is within the rule of section 552. 1983Identifying themselves as among the "limited group of persons for whose benefit and guidance" the survey was made, they cite Roberts v. Ball, (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 104 , 128 Cal.Rptr. 901 , Kovaleski v. Tallahassee Title Co. (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1978) 363 $o.2d 1156, Silver v. George, (Hawaii Ct.App.1980) 1 Haw.App. 331 , 618 P.2d 1157 , Rozny v. Marnul, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 54 , 250 N.E.2d 656 , and Stotlar v. Hester, (N.M.Ct.App.1978) 92 N.M. 26 , 582 P.2d 403 , to demonstrate that this case is within the rule of section 552.	1	1983–1983
State ex rel. Little v. Parsons neutral ind · 1897 2 sentences 1925State, ex rel., v. Parsons (1897), 147 Ind. 579 , 47 N. E. 17 , 62 Am. 1925State, ex rel., v. Parsons (1897), 147 Ind. 579 , 47 N. E. 17 , 62 Am.	1	1925–1925
Darnell v. Rowland neutral ind · 1868 1 sentence 1921Darnell v. Rowland (1868), 30 Ind. 342, 346 ; Raymond v. Wathen (1895), 142 Ind. 367, 374 , 41 N. E. 815 .	1	1921–1921
Raymond v. Wathen green ind · 1895 2 sentences 1921Darnell v. Rowland (1868), 30 Ind. 342, 346 ; Raymond v. Wathen (1895), 142 Ind. 367, 374 , 41 N. E. 815 . 1921Darnell v. Rowland (1868), 30 Ind. 342, 346 ; Raymond v. Wathen (1895), 142 Ind. 367, 374 , 41 N. E. 815 .	1	1921–1921
Stowell v. Hastings neutral vt · 1887 1 sentence 1895Van Gorder v. Smith, 99 Ind. 404 , and cases cited; Stowell v. Hastings, 59 Vt. 494 , 59 Am.	1	1895–1895
Hines v. Driver neutral ind · 1882 1 sentence 1895This case is within the principle established in Hines v. Driver, supra, and Paul v. Davis, supra. It is urged by appellee, that by holding the county liable in such cases as this, the boards of commissioners will be convinced that it is cheaper to keep the bridges in repair than to pay damages for injuries.	1	1895–1895
Paul v. Davis green ind · 1885 1 sentence 1895This case is within the principle established in Hines v. Driver, supra, and Paul v. Davis, supra. It is urged by appellee, that by holding the county liable in such cases as this, the boards of commissioners will be convinced that it is cheaper to keep the bridges in repair than to pay damages for injuries.	1	1895–1895
Cleveland v. Spilman green ind · 1865 1 sentence 1886The case is within the rule declared in Cleveland v. Spilman, 25 Ind. 95 , and Black v. Richards, 95 Ind. 184 .	1	1886–1886
Ryan v. Curran green · 1878 1 sentence 1886In support of this position we are referred to the cases of Ryan v. Curran, 64 Ind. 345 (31 Am.	1	1886–1886
Black v. Richards neutral ind · 1883 1 sentence 1886The case is within the rule declared in Cleveland v. Spilman, 25 Ind. 95 , and Black v. Richards, 95 Ind. 184 .	1	1886–1886
Smith v. Cottrell neutral ind · 1884 1 sentence 1885The case is within the principle of Smith, v. Cottrell, 94 Ind. 379 .	1	1885–1885
Fish v. Dodge green nysupct · 1847 1 sentence 1873If the use of the kiln, at the place where it was located, was as allegad in the complaint, inherently dangerous to the property of the plaintiff, and the defendant with such knowledge sold his property in the kiln to Jackson & Eider, his former partners, and leased them the real estate, reserving rent therefore knowing, or having reason to believe, that they would continue to use the premises as a location for the kiln, and knowing, or having reason to believe, that they would continue the use of the kiln for the purpose for which it was erected, and as it had been used before, the case is wi	1	1873–1873
Orth v. Jennings green ind · 1847 1 sentence 1851The case is within the principle decided in Orth v. Jennings, et al., 8 Blackf. 420 .	1	1851–1851

Where else courts name it

MI 50 (1871–1976) NY 44 (1824–1932) IA 25 (1859–1968) PA 25 (1863–2008) CA 23 (1859–2004) GA 12 (1877–2021) NE 12 (1887–1920) IN 11 (1851–1983) MN 10 (1888–1943) TX 9 (1859–2015) KS 9 (1897–1934) MA 9 (1836–1972) VA 8 (1890–1984) WI 7 (1878–1987) LA 6 (1915–1949) MO 5 (1877–1982) IL 5 (1867–1892) AL 5 (1926–1952) FL 4 (1923–1983) OK 4 (1880–1924) NC 4 (1843–1970) CO 3 (1873–1961) UT 3 (1928–1943) MT 3 (1913–1979) MS 3 (1871–1895) NJ 2 (1911–1926) OR 2 (1892–1933) WV 2 (1903–1968) MD 2 (1852–1858) ID 2 (1931–1941) NH 2 (1844–1891) KY 2 (1859–1956) WA 2 (1905–1913)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check