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.
11 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brian Yost v. Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity- Indiana Gamma Chapter at Wabash College, Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, Inc., and Nathan Cravensgreen2 sentences2017To come within the embrace of a punitive damages claim the defendant must have “subjected other persons to probable injury, with an awareness of such impending danger and with heedless indifference of the consequences.” Yost v. Wabash Coll., 3 N.E.3d 509, 523 (Ind. 2014) (quotation omitted). 2017To come within the embrace of a punitive damages claim the defendant must have “subjected other persons to probable injury, with an awareness of such impending danger and with heedless indifference of the consequences.” Yost v. Wabash Coll., 3 N.E.3d 509, 523 (Ind. 2014) (quotation omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Cheatham v. Pohlegreen2 sentences2012Cheatham v. Pohle, 789 N.E.2d 467, 472 (Ind.2003). 2012Id. at 473-74 . | 1 | 1 |
Randolph v. Methodist Hospitals, Inc.green2 sentences2005Niksich v. Cotton, 810 N.E.2d 1003, 1004 (Ind.2004); Randolph v. Methodist Hosp., Inc., 793 N.E.2d 231, 234 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. 2005Niksich v. Cotton, 810 N.E.2d 1003, 1004 (Ind.2004); Randolph v. Methodist Hosp., Inc., 793 N.E.2d 231, 234 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Niksich v. Cottongreen2 sentences2005Niksich v. Cotton, 810 N.E.2d 1003, 1004 (Ind.2004); Randolph v. Methodist Hosp., Inc., 793 N.E.2d 231, 234 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. 2005Niksich v. Cotton, 810 N.E.2d 1003, 1004 (Ind.2004); Randolph v. Methodist Hosp., Inc., 793 N.E.2d 231, 234 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Executive Builders, Inc. v. Trislergreen2 sentences2002Executive Builders, Inc. v. Trisler, 741 N.E.2d 351, 360 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied, cert. pending. 2002Executive Builders, Inc. v. Trisler, 741 N.E.2d 351, 360 (Ind. Ct.App.2000), trans. denied, cert. pending. | 1 | 1 |
Breeck v. City of Madisongreen1 sentence1997See Breeck v. City of Madison, 592 N.E.2d 700, 703 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Trainagreen1 sentence1992Were it otherwise, there would be no restraint upon the award of punitive damages upon conflicting inferences." Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Traina (1986), Ind., 486 N.E.2d 1019, 1023 (original emphasis). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. Smith
green
2 sentences2013This holding is consistent with the notion that “an insured who believes that an insurance claim has been wrongly denied may have available two distinct legal theories, one in contract and one in tort, each with separate, although often overlapping, elements, defenses and recoveries.” Hickman, 622 N.E.2d at 520 . 2013This holding is consistent with the notion that "an insured who believes that an insurance claim has been wrongly denied may have available two distinct legal theories, one in contract and one in tort, each with separate, although often overlapping, elements, defenses and recoveries." Hickman, 622 N.E.2d at 520 . | 2 | 2002–2013 |
Lindley v. Oppegaard
green
2 sentences2018The Court specified that evidence of the driver's prior convictions was "not relevant" with respect to the plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages and loss of consortium, and thus the Court addressed only whether the evidence was relative to the punitive damages claim. 5 73 N.E.3d at 706 . [21] In performing this narrow review, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals *700 that "evidence of similar acts may be admissible 'because of the light which it throws on the state of mind of a person, as for example, his knowledge, motive or intent.' " Id. (quoting Lindley v. Oppegaard , 150 Ind.A 2018The Court specified that evidence of the driver's prior convictions was "not relevant" with respect to the plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages and loss of consortium, and thus the Court addressed only whether the evidence was relative to the punitive damages claim. 5 73 N.E.3d at 706 . [21] In performing this narrow review, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals *700 that "evidence of similar acts may be admissible 'because of the light which it throws on the state of mind of a person, as for example, his knowledge, motive or intent.' " Id. (quoting Lindley v. Oppegaard , 150 Ind.A | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Danny Sims v. Andrew Pappas and Melissa Pappas
green
2 sentences2018The Court specified that evidence of the driver's prior convictions was "not relevant" with respect to the plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages and loss of consortium, and thus the Court addressed only whether the evidence was relative to the punitive damages claim. 5 73 N.E.3d at 706 . [21] In performing this narrow review, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals *700 that "evidence of similar acts may be admissible 'because of the light which it throws on the state of mind of a person, as for example, his knowledge, motive or intent.' " Id. (quoting Lindley v. Oppegaard , 150 Ind.A 2018The Court specified that evidence of the driver's prior convictions was "not relevant" with respect to the plaintiff's claims for compensatory damages and loss of consortium, and thus the Court addressed only whether the evidence was relative to the punitive damages claim. 5 73 N.E.3d at 706 . [21] In performing this narrow review, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals *700 that "evidence of similar acts may be admissible 'because of the light which it throws on the state of mind of a person, as for example, his knowledge, motive or intent.' " Id. (quoting Lindley v. Oppegaard , 150 Ind.A | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dercach
green
1 sentence1984Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dercach (3d Dist. 1983) Ind.App., 450 N.E.2d 537 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.