11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
John W. Schoettmer & Karen Schoettmer v. Jolene C. Wright & South Central Community Action Program, Inc.green2 sentences2024As the Indiana Supreme Court has explained, the ITCA notice requirement is “intended to ensure that government entities have the opportunity to investigate the incident giving rise to the claim and prepare a defense.” Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 706 . 2023The Court noted that an ITCA notice defense is waived if not “asserted in a responsive pleading.” Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 706 (quoting Thompson v. City of Aurora, 263 Ind. 187, 190 , 325 N.E.2d 839, 841 (1975)). | 2 | 5 |
Thompson v. City of Auroragreen2 sentences2023The Court noted that an ITCA notice defense is waived if not “asserted in a responsive pleading.” Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 706 (quoting Thompson v. City of Aurora, 263 Ind. 187, 190 , 325 N.E.2d 839, 841 (1975)). 2023The Court noted that an ITCA notice defense is waived if not “asserted in a responsive pleading.” Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 706 (quoting Thompson v. City of Aurora, 263 Ind. 187, 190 , 325 N.E.2d 839, 841 (1975)). | 1 | 1 |
City of Indianapolis v. Rachael Buschmangreen1 sentence2020Because the ITCA is in derogation of the common law, it “must be strictly construed against limitations on the claimant’s right to bring suit.’” Id. (quoting City of Indianapolis v. Buschman, 988 N.E.2d 791, 794 (Ind. 2013)). [9] We begin with a careful examination of Chariton’s claims. | 1 | 1 |
Sandra S. Weaver v. Elkhart Community School Corporationgreen2 sentences2019Corp., 95 N.E.3d 97, 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (dismissing Weaver’s claim of constructive fraud for failure to comply with the ITCA notice requirement). 2019Id. | 1 | 1 |
Lyons v. Richmond Community School Corp.green2 sentences2016Lyons, 19 N.E.3d at 259 (summarily affirming this Court’s holding that “substantial compliance cannot exist when the claimant took no steps whatsoever to comply with the notice statute” and that claimants who “filed no no-tiee-of-claim—defective or otherwise— within 180 days” of loss “did not substantially comply with the ITCA notice requirement”). 2016In Lyons , our Supreme Court found genuine issues of material fact on the plaintiffs’ claim that “the discovery rule should apply to excuse [their] noncompliance with the ITCA notice requirement” and them alternative claim that “the defendants should be estopped from asserting their ITCA notice defense because they fraudulently concealed the existence of the Lyonses’ claims.” 19 N.E.3d at 260-61 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Fowler v. Brewergreen1 sentence2013Fowler v. Brewer, 773 N.E.2d 858, 862-63 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), tran s. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Alexander
green
2 sentences2014Thus, as both parties agree “the Lyonses filed no notice-of-claim—defective or otherwise—within 180 days of Megan’s death,” id., we summarily affirm that portion of the opinion below concluding the Lyonses did not substantially comply with the ITCA notice requirement. 2014Thus, as both parties agree “the Lyonses filed no notice-of-claim—defective or otherwise—within 180 days of Megan’s death,” id., we summarily affirm that portion of the opinion below concluding the Lyonses did not substantially comply with the ITCA notice requirement. | 3 | 2014–2014 |
Orem v. Ivy Tech State College
green
1 sentence2019Orem, 711 N.E.2d at 869 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Allen v. Lake County Jail
green
2 sentences2016Jail, 496 N.E.2d 412 , 415 n.3 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), reh’g denied. 3 *1133 [14] Our Supreme Court recently explained that a plaintiff claiming estoppel in response to an ITCA-notice defense “must show its (1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge as to the facts in question, (2) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped, and (3) action based thereon of such a character as to change [its] position prejudicially.” Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 709 . 2016Jail, 496 N.E.2d 412 , 415 n.3 (Ind.Ct.App.1986), reh’g denied. 3 *1133 [14] Our Supreme Court recently explained that a plaintiff claiming estoppel in response to an ITCA-notice defense “must show its (1) lack of knowledge and of the means of knowledge as to the facts in question, (2) reliance upon the conduct of the party estopped, and (3) action based thereon of such a character as to change [its] position prejudicially.” Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 709 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
City of Terre Haute v. Brighton
green
1 sentence1985Moreover, in City of Terre Haute v. Brighton (1983), Ind.App., 450 N.E.2d 1039 , trans. denied, a § 1983 claim was brought against the city by certain firemen and the city argued the suit was precluded because of the plaintiff's failure to comply with the ITCA notice requirement. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.