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 1 courts 1979–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Ventura, State of Cal. v. Neicegreen2 sentences2012Its primary value is to promote uniformity of decision by discouraging repeated litigation of the same question.’ ” Id. (citations omitted). 2002This court has held that comity “represents a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will.” State Bd. of Registration for Prof'l Eng’rs v. Eberenz, 701 N.E.2d 892, 895 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (citing County of Ventura v. Neice, 434 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)). | 2 | 7 |
State Board of Registration for Professional Engineers v. Eberenzgreen1 sentence2002This court has held that comity “represents a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will.” State Bd. of Registration for Prof'l Eng’rs v. Eberenz, 701 N.E.2d 892, 895 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (citing County of Ventura v. Neice, 434 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind.Ct.App.1982)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brightpoint, Inc. v. Pedersen
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Mason v. Mason
green
2 sentences2016However, Indiana courts “need not apply a sister state’s law if such law violates Indiana public policy.” ’ Id. [11] Kristy contends the trial court erred in recognizing Kristy’s and Denise’s RDP as a spousal relationship because recognition of a same-sex marriage is contrary to Indiana public policy. 2016Comity “represents a willingness to grant a privilege, not as a matter of right, but out of deference and good will.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State of Fla. Ex Rel. O'Malley v. Department of Ins.
green
1 sentence1979Its primary value is to promote uniformity of decision by discouraging repeated litigation of the same question.” (Our emphasis.) 291 N.E.2d at 912 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.