excellent analysis in Indiana

1998Ansert Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Donald Ansert, 690 N.E.2d 305 (1997).

1991An excellent analysis of Ellis and Lane appears in Starks v. State (1991), Ind.App., 565 N.E.2d 1142 , trans. denied and is helpful in our analysis of the case before us. *964 In Starks, the defendant forced the ten-year-old victim to perform fellatio on him, and after the victim's unsuccessful attempt to obtain help, he engaged her in vaginal and anal intercourse.

1987An excellent analysis of the interpretation of the revision of this statute was done by Judge Neal in Jones v. State (1983), Ind.App., 457 N.E.2d 231, 233-34 .

1983Lockhart v. Hoenstine, (3rd Cir.1969) 411 F.2d 455 , cert. denied, 396 U.S. 941 , 90 S.Ct. 378 , 24 LEd.2d 244, provides an excellent analysis of the quasi-judicial immunity afforded to court clerks.

1983Lockhart v. Hoenstine, (3rd Cir.1969) 411 F.2d 455 , cert. denied, 396 U.S. 941 , 90 S.Ct. 378 , 24 LEd.2d 244, provides an excellent analysis of the quasi-judicial immunity afforded to court clerks.

1983Lockhart v. Hoenstine, (3rd Cir.1969) 411 F.2d 455 , cert. denied, 396 U.S. 941 , 90 S.Ct. 378 , 24 LEd.2d 244, provides an excellent analysis of the quasi-judicial immunity afforded to court clerks.

1983Recognizing that the clerk is compelled to obey the mandate of a court, the third circuit was "cognizant of the manifest unfairness of subjecting one to suit as a consequence of action taken at the direction of officials over whom the individual actor has no power or control." Id. at 460 .

1982An excellent analysis of these various rules was set forth recently by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Elberon Bathing v. Ambassador Ins., (1978) 77 N.J. 1 , 389 A.2d 439 .

1982An excellent analysis of these various rules was set forth recently by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Elberon Bathing v. Ambassador Ins., (1978) 77 N.J. 1 , 389 A.2d 439 .

1980State v. Dwenger (1976), Ind. App., 341 N.E.2d 776, 778-80 ; Easley v. Williams (1975), 163 Ind. App. 38 , 321 N.E.2d 752, 754 .

1980State v. Dwenger (1976), Ind. App., 341 N.E.2d 776, 778-80 ; Easley v. Williams (1975), 163 Ind. App. 38 , 321 N.E.2d 752, 754 .

1980State v. Dwenger (1976), Ind. App., 341 N.E.2d 776, 778-80 ; Easley v. Williams (1975), 163 Ind. App. 38 , 321 N.E.2d 752, 754 .

1976However, the landlord would be liable for all injuries resulting from his failure to inform the tenant of a latent defect known to the landlord of which the tenant is ignorant at the time of the lease.); LaPlante v. LaZear (1903), 31 Ind. App. 433 , 68 N.E. 312 (Landlord held liable to tenant for injuries caused by a patent defect — a broken step — in a "common area" upon his promise to repair and subsequent failure to do so.); Stover v. Fechtman (1966), 140 Ind. App. 62 , 222 N.E.2d 281 (Landlord held not liable under general rule because steps leading to a double house leased by the landlord

1976However, the landlord would be liable for all injuries resulting from his failure to inform the tenant of a latent defect known to the landlord of which the tenant is ignorant at the time of the lease.); LaPlante v. LaZear (1903), 31 Ind. App. 433 , 68 N.E. 312 (Landlord held liable to tenant for injuries caused by a patent defect — a broken step — in a "common area" upon his promise to repair and subsequent failure to do so.); Stover v. Fechtman (1966), 140 Ind. App. 62 , 222 N.E.2d 281 (Landlord held not liable under general rule because steps leading to a double house leased by the landlord

1976However, the landlord would be liable for all injuries resulting from his failure to inform the tenant of a latent defect known to the landlord of which the tenant is ignorant at the time of the lease.); LaPlante v. LaZear (1903), 31 Ind. App. 433 , 68 N.E. 312 (Landlord held liable to tenant for injuries caused by a patent defect — a broken step — in a "common area" upon his promise to repair and subsequent failure to do so.); Stover v. Fechtman (1966), 140 Ind. App. 62 , 222 N.E.2d 281 (Landlord held not liable under general rule because steps leading to a double house leased by the landlord

1976However, the landlord would be liable for all injuries resulting from his failure to inform the tenant of a latent defect known to the landlord of which the tenant is ignorant at the time of the lease.); LaPlante v. LaZear (1903), 31 Ind. App. 433 , 68 N.E. 312 (Landlord held liable to tenant for injuries caused by a patent defect — a broken step — in a "common area" upon his promise to repair and subsequent failure to do so.); Stover v. Fechtman (1966), 140 Ind. App. 62 , 222 N.E.2d 281 (Landlord held not liable under general rule because steps leading to a double house leased by the landlord

1976However, the landlord would be liable for all injuries resulting from his failure to inform the tenant of a latent defect known to the landlord of which the tenant is ignorant at the time of the lease.); LaPlante v. LaZear (1903), 31 Ind. App. 433 , 68 N.E. 312 (Landlord held liable to tenant for injuries caused by a patent defect — a broken step — in a "common area" upon his promise to repair and subsequent failure to do so.); Stover v. Fechtman (1966), 140 Ind. App. 62 , 222 N.E.2d 281 (Landlord held not liable under general rule because steps leading to a double house leased by the landlord

1976However, the landlord would be liable for all injuries resulting from his failure to inform the tenant of a latent defect known to the landlord of which the tenant is ignorant at the time of the lease.); LaPlante v. LaZear (1903), 31 Ind. App. 433 , 68 N.E. 312 (Landlord held liable to tenant for injuries caused by a patent defect — a broken step — in a "common area" upon his promise to repair and subsequent failure to do so.); Stover v. Fechtman (1966), 140 Ind. App. 62 , 222 N.E.2d 281 (Landlord held not liable under general rule because steps leading to a double house leased by the landlord

1976For an excellent analysis of this Uniform Act, see Note, supra note 1, 6 Ind.L.Rev. 741. [16] See Guenther v. Jackson (1922), 79 Ind. App. 127 , 137 N.E. 582 (Landlord held not liable to tenant for injuries sustained from latent defect unless the landlord agrees to repair and is negligent in so doing.

1976For an excellent analysis of this Uniform Act, see Note, supra note 1, 6 Ind.L.Rev. 741. [16] See Guenther v. Jackson (1922), 79 Ind. App. 127 , 137 N.E. 582 (Landlord held not liable to tenant for injuries sustained from latent defect unless the landlord agrees to repair and is negligent in so doing.

1973For an excellent analysis in a state court see Drug Cosmetic & Beauty Trades Services, Inc. v. McFate (1971), 14 Ariz. App. 7 , 480 P. 2d 30 .

1973For an excellent analysis in a state court see Drug Cosmetic & Beauty Trades Services, Inc. v. McFate (1971), 14 Ariz. App. 7 , 480 P. 2d 30 .

1963The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense — by the erection of buildings and the like — is not material.” For an excellent analysis of the problem, see Ackerman v. Port of Seattle; amended opinion at 55 Wash. 2d 400 , 348 P. 2d 664 (1960), unamended opinion at 329 P. 2d 210 (1958).

1963The fact that he does not occupy it in a physical sense — by the erection of buildings and the like — is not material.” For an excellent analysis of the problem, see Ackerman v. Port of Seattle; amended opinion at 55 Wash. 2d 400 , 348 P. 2d 664 (1960), unamended opinion at 329 P. 2d 210 (1958).

1963The Causby case, supra, was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 5, 1962, in Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U. S. 84 , 7 L.

1963The Causby case, supra, was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States on March 5, 1962, in Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U. S. 84 , 7 L.