10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1886–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Institute v. Rinegreen2 sentences2020An exception to that general rule, however, was articulated by the court in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Institute v. Rine (1946) 80 Ohio App. 317 , 75 N.E.2d 473 : “It is generally accepted that he who seeks damages for a breach of contract bears the burden of proof, unless a statute otherwise dictates or knowledge is peculiarly within the possession of the other contracting party who must, in such case, bear the burden of producing it.” Id. at 320 , 75 N.E.2d at 474 (emphasis supplied). 2020An exception to that general rule, however, was articulated by the court in Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Institute v. Rine (1946) 80 Ohio App. 317 , 75 N.E.2d 473 : “It is generally accepted that he who seeks damages for a breach of contract bears the burden of proof, unless a statute otherwise dictates or knowledge is peculiarly within the possession of the other contracting party who must, in such case, bear the burden of producing it.” Id. at 320 , 75 N.E.2d at 474 (emphasis supplied). | 2 | 2 |
JKL Components Corp. v. Insul-Reps, Inc.green1 sentence2020JKL Components Corp. v. Insul-Reps, Inc., 596 N.E.2d 945, 954 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). “[W]here there is any doubt as to the exact proof of damages, such uncertainty must be resolved against the wrongdoer.” Babson Bros. | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Perry recognized that “[statements attributing fault or establishing a perpetrator’s identity are typically inadmissible under the medical diagnosis [and treatment] exception” — but also recognized an exception to that general rule “in cases involving child abuse, sexual assault, and/or domestic violence.” 956 N.E.2d at 49 (emphasis added). 2016Perry recognized that “[s]tatements attributing fault or establishing a perpetrator’s identity are typically inadmissible under the medical diagnosis [and treatment] exception”—but also recognized an exception to that general rule “in cases involving child abuse, sexual assault, and/or domestic violence.” 956 N.E.2d at 49 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Nash v. Stategreen2 sentences2016In essence, Perry reasoned that because of the unique nature of those eases, identifying the attacker serves a primarily medical, not testimonial, purpose because a “physician generally must know who the abuser was-in order to render proper treatment because the physician’s treatment will necessarily differ when the abuser is a member of the victim’s family or household.” Id. (quoting Nash v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1021, 1025 (Ind,Ct.App.2001)). 1. 2016In essence, Perry reasoned that because of the unique nature of those cases, identifying the attacker serves a primarily medical, not testimonial, purpose because a “physician generally must know who the abuser was in order to render proper treatment because the physician’s treatment will necessarily differ when the abuser is a member of the victim’s family or household.” Id. (quoting Nash v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1021, 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)). 1. | 1 | 1 |
Heritage Development of Indiana, Inc. v. Opportunity Options, Inc.green1 sentence2008See, e.g., Heritage Dev. of Ind., Inc. v. Opportunity Options, Inc., 773 N.E.2d 881, 891 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (“The usual test of the severability of a contract is the entirety or divisibility of the consideration[.]”), trans. dismissed (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stumpf v. Hagerman Construction Corp.
green
1 sentence2016Id. [11] In determining whether a party assumed a duty by contract, as Ryan argues TCI did, we look at the parties’ intent at the time of execution of.the contract as disclosed by the language used to express their rights and duties. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hoglund v. State
green
1 sentence2014Id. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2005While the general rule of Apprendi is that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury," the State argues that Apprendi contains an exception to that general rule for "the fact of a prior conviction." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . 2005While the general rule of Apprendi is that "any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury," the State argues that Apprendi contains an exception to that general rule for "the fact of a prior conviction." Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Davis v. Alaska
green
2 sentences1994Lahr claims an exception to that general rule, relying upon Terrell v. State (1987), Ind.App., 507 N.E.2d 633 , tram, denied, and Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 . 1994Lahr claims an exception to that general rule, relying upon Terrell v. State (1987), Ind.App., 507 N.E.2d 633 , tram, denied, and Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Terrell v. State
green
2 sentences1994Lahr claims an exception to that general rule, relying upon Terrell v. State (1987), Ind.App., 507 N.E.2d 633 , tram, denied, and Davis v. Alaska (1974), 415 U.S. 308 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 , 39 L.Ed.2d 347 . 1994In Terrell , we found an exception to the general rule where the defendant declared in opening statement that he had “no record.” 507 N.E.2d at 635 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Masano v. Albritton
green
2 sentences1992The court in Masano v. Albritton (1967), 245 Md. 423 , 226 A.2d 299 considered a somewhat analogous factual situation. 1992The court in Masano v. Albritton (1967), 245 Md. 423 , 226 A.2d 299 considered a somewhat analogous factual situation. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Berry v. State
green
2 sentences1983Retroactive Effect of Amended Statute In applying the general rule that the law in effect at the time the crime was committed controls, and statutes are to be given prospective effect absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, cf. Berry v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 626 , 321 N.E.2d 207 , the majority fails to consider the exception to that general rule which provides that an ameliorative sentencing provision may be applied retroactively. - Lewandowski v. State (1979), Ind., 389 N.E.2d 706 . 1983Retroactive Effect of Amended Statute In applying the general rule that the law in effect at the time the crime was committed controls, and statutes are to be given prospective effect absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, cf. Berry v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 626 , 321 N.E.2d 207 , the majority fails to consider the exception to that general rule which provides that an ameliorative sentencing provision may be applied retroactively. - Lewandowski v. State (1979), Ind., 389 N.E.2d 706 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Lewandowski v. State
green
2 sentences1983Retroactive Effect of Amended Statute In applying the general rule that the law in effect at the time the crime was committed controls, and statutes are to be given prospective effect absent clear legislative intent to the contrary, cf. Berry v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 626 , 321 N.E.2d 207 , the majority fails to consider the exception to that general rule which provides that an ameliorative sentencing provision may be applied retroactively. - Lewandowski v. State (1979), Ind., 389 N.E.2d 706 . 1983Lewandowski v. State (1979), Ind., 389 N.E.2d 706 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McConnell v. Hannah
neutral
1 sentence1886There is an exception to that general rule, which is stated in the case of McConnell v. Hannah, 96 Ind. 102 , as follows : “ But an exception thereto is that when declarations, qualifying and giving character to an act proper to .be given in evidence, accompany that act, they are admissible whether self-serving or not, because they are a-part of the res gestee.” In the case of Creighton v. Hoppis, 99 Ind. 369 , this court quoted with approval the following from the opinion in the case of Downs v. Lyman, 3 N. H. 486, viz.: “The rule of law is, that where it is necessary, in the course of a caus | 1 | 1886–1886 |
Creighton v. Hoppis
green
1 sentence1886There is an exception to that general rule, which is stated in the case of McConnell v. Hannah, 96 Ind. 102 , as follows : “ But an exception thereto is that when declarations, qualifying and giving character to an act proper to .be given in evidence, accompany that act, they are admissible whether self-serving or not, because they are a-part of the res gestee.” In the case of Creighton v. Hoppis, 99 Ind. 369 , this court quoted with approval the following from the opinion in the case of Downs v. Lyman, 3 N. H. 486, viz.: “The rule of law is, that where it is necessary, in the course of a caus | 1 | 1886–1886 |
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.