71 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yanoff v. Muncygreen2 sentences2019Id. 2018Id. | 3 | 16 |
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Raboldgreen2 sentences2002CSX Transp., Inc. v. Rabold, 691 N.E.2d 1275, 1277 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). 2002CSX Transp., Inc. v. Rabold, 691 N.E.2d 1275, 1277 (Ind.Ct.App.1998). | 3 | 3 |
Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2020Co. v. Jones, 953 N.E.2d 608, 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. [7] We apply a two-tier standard of review to the sua sponte findings and conclusions. 2013Co. v. Jones, 953 N.E.2d 608, 614 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. 11 We apply the following two-tier standard of review to sua sponte findings and conclusions: whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Paternity of MGSgreen2 sentences2019In re Paternity of M.G.S., 756 N.E.2d 990, 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. 2019In re Paternity of M.G.S., 756 N.E.2d 990, 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Kettery v. Heckgreen2 sentences1999Kettery v. Heck, 587 N.E.2d 1365, 1367 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied. 1998Rettery v. Heck, 587 N.E.2d 1365, 1367 (Ind.Ct.App.1992), trans. denied. | 2 | 2 |
Graham v. REVIEW BD., ETC.green2 sentences1989“Under this two-tier standard of review, the Review Board’s ‘finding of ultimate fact’ is the conclusion, and the ‘findings of basic facts’ are the premises from which the Review Board deduced its conclusion.” Graham v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1979) 3d Dist., 179 Ind.App. 497 , 386 N.E.2d 699, 701 . 1989"Under this two-tier standard of review, the Review Board's `finding of ultimate fact' is the conclusion, and the `findings of basic facts' are the premises from which the Review Board deduced its conclusion." Graham v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1979) 3d Dist., 179 Ind. App. 497 , 386 N.E.2d 699, 701 . | 1 | 5 |
Dennis Samples v. Steve Wilson and Donald & Ingrid Bannon, husband and wife, and Ronald & Edna Bannon, husband and wifegreen2 sentences2017Where there are no specific findings, a general judgment standard applies and we may affirm on any legal theory supported by Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A05-1604-PL-810 | May 19, 2017 Page 5 of 18 the evidence adduced at trial.” Samples v. Wilson, 12 N.E.3d 946, 949-50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). [12] We apply a two-tier standard of review to the sua sponte findings and conclusions. 2017We apply a two-tier standard of review to the sua sponte findings and conclusions thereon. *1012 Id. at 950 . | 1 | 3 |
The Estate of George A. Henry v. Nadene Woodsgreen2 sentences2024Id. 2020Estate of Henry v. Woods, 77 N.E.3d 1200, 1204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). | 1 | 2 |
Olcott International & Co. v. Micro Data Base Systems, Inc.green2 sentences2009Id. 2005"In such a case, we apply the following two-tier standard of review: whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment." Olcott Intern. & Co., Inc. v. Micro Data Base Systems, Inc., 793 N.E.2d 1063, 1071 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. | 1 | 2 |
Daniel P. Millikan v. Lori A. Eifridgreen1 sentence2018Millikan v. Eifrid, 968 N.E.2d 243, 251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). | 1 | 1 |
Phillip J. Troyer v. Tracy L. Troyergreen1 sentence2017Troyer v. Troyer, 987 N.E.2d 1130, 1134 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Jeffrey Crider v. Christina Cridergreen1 sentence2015When a trial court does so pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52, we apply the following two-tier standard of review: whether the evidence supports the findings of fact, and whether the findings support the conclusions.- Crider v. Crider, 15 N.E.3d 1042, 1052 (Ind.Ct.App.2014), tram, denied. | 1 | 1 |
Estudillo v. Estudillogreen1 sentence2013Id. at 1090 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Zukerman v. Montgomerygreen1 sentence2012Zukerman v. Montgomery, 945 N.E.2d 813, 818 (Ind.Ct.App.2011). | 1 | 1 |
Wedgewood Community Ass'n, Inc. v. Nashgreen1 sentence2006See Wedgewood Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Nash, 781 N.E.2d 1172, 1177-78 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), clarified on reh'g, 789 N.E.2d 495 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003), trans. denied (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Wedgewood Community Ass'n v. Nashgreen1 sentence2006See Wedgewood Cmty. Ass'n, Inc. v. Nash, 781 N.E.2d 1172, 1177-78 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), clarified on reh'g, 789 N.E.2d 495 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003), trans. denied (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Crawley v. Oak Bend Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Harco, Inc. of Indianapolis v. Plainfield Interstate Family Dining Associatesgreen1 sentence2003Chidester v. City of Hobart, 681 N.E.2d 908, 910 (Ind.1994); Harco, Inc. of Indianapolis v. Plainfield Interstate Family Dining Assocs., 758 N.E.2d 931, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.2001); Lynn v. Windridge Co-Ouwners Ass'n, Inc., 748 N.E.2d 305 , 309 (Ind.Ct.App.2001), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Knox County Rural Electric Membership Corp. v. PSI Energy, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Western Ohio Pizza, Inc. v. Clark Oil & Refining Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dana Companies v. Chaffee Rentals
green
2 sentences2024Id. [16] A two-tier standard of review is applied to the sua sponte findings and conclusions made: whether the evidence supports the findings, and whether the findings support the judgment. 2024Id. | 4 | 2014–2024 |
W & W Equipment Co., Inc. v. Mink
green
2 sentences1995W & W Equipment Co. v. Mink (1991), Ind.App., 568 N.E.2d 564, 569 , reh'g denied, trans. denied. 1993W & W Equipment Co., Inc. v. Mink (1991), Ind.App., 568 N.E.2d 564, 569 . | 3 | 1992–1995 |
Trust No. 6011, Lake County Trust Co. v. Heil's Haven Condominiums Homeowners Ass'n
green
2 sentences2019Id. 2019Id. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Eastern Alliance Insurance Group v. Howell
green
2 sentences2016Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1503-EX-176 | January 22, 2016 Page 10 of 17 Howell, 929 N.E.2d at 926 . [18] When reviewing a decision of the Board, we employ a two-tier standard of review. 2016Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 93A02-1503-EX-176 | January 22, 2016 Page 10 of 17 Howell, 929 N.E.2d at 926 . [18] When reviewing a decision of the Board, we employ a two-tier standard of review. | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Ag One Co-Op v. Scott
green
2 sentences2016Scott, 914 N.E.2d at 862-63 . 2016Scott, 914 N.E.2d at 862-63 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Coffin v. Hollar
green
2 sentences2001Id. 1995Coffin v. Hollar (1998), Ind.App., 626 N.E.2d 586, 589 . | 2 | 1995–2001 |
National Advertising Co. v. Wilson Auto Parts, Inc.
green
2 sentences1993TR. 52(A) National Advertising Co. v. Wilson Auto Parts, Inc. (1991), Ind. App., 569 N.E.2d 997 . 1992National Advertising Co. v. Wilson Auto Parts, Inc. (1991), Ind.App., 569 N.E.2d 997 . | 2 | 1992–1993 |
Kaminszky v. Kukuch
green
2 sentences1991Kaminszky v. Kukuch (1990), Ind. App., 553 N.E.2d 868 , trans. denied. 1991Kaminszky v. Kukuch (1990), Ind.App., 553 N.E.2d 868 , trans. denied. | 2 | 1991–1991 |
Keystone Square Shopping Center Co. v. Marsh Supermarkets, Inc.
green
2 sentences1991The trial court's findings and conclusions will be set aside only if they are clearly erroneous, that is, that the record contains no fact or inferences - supporting them. - Keystone Square v. Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. (1984), Ind.App., 459 N.E.2d 420, 422 . 1987Keystone Square v. Marsh Supermarkets, Inc. (1984), Ind.App., 459 N.E.2d 420, 422 , trans. den. | 2 | 1987–1991 |
GOLD BOND BLDG. PROD. DIV., ETC. v. Review Bd., Ind.
green
2 sentences1989"At the first level of review, we examine only the relationship between the premises and the conclusion and ask if the Board's deduction is `reasonable.' (Cites omitted.) The inquiry at this first level of review may be termed a `question of law.' (Cites omitted.) At the second level of review, we inquire into the nexus between the premises or findings of basic facts and the evidence presented to determine if the evidence justified those findings." Id. ( quoting Gold Bond Building Products Division National Gypsum Co. v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1976) 2d Dist., 1983Under this two-tier standard of review, the Review Board's "finding of ultimate fact" is the conclusion, and the "findings of basic facts" are the premises from which the Review Board deduced its conclusion. - Graham v. Review Board, (1979) Ind.App., 386 N.E.2d 699 . *1345 "At the first level of review, we examine only the relationship between the premises and the conclusion and ask if the Board's deduction is 'reasonable' (Citations omitted.) 'The inquiry at this first level of review may be termed a 'question of law.' (Citations omitted.) "At the second level of review, we inquire into the n | 2 | 1983–1989 |
Graham v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division
neutral
2 sentences1989“Under this two-tier standard of review, the Review Board’s ‘finding of ultimate fact’ is the conclusion, and the ‘findings of basic facts’ are the premises from which the Review Board deduced its conclusion.” Graham v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1979) 3d Dist., 179 Ind.App. 497 , 386 N.E.2d 699, 701 . 1989"Under this two-tier standard of review, the Review Board's `finding of ultimate fact' is the conclusion, and the `findings of basic facts' are the premises from which the Review Board deduced its conclusion." Graham v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1979) 3d Dist., 179 Ind. App. 497 , 386 N.E.2d 699, 701 . | 2 | 1983–1989 |
Gold Bond Building Products Division National Gypsum Co. v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division
neutral
2 sentences1989"At the first level of review, we examine only the relationship between the premises and the conclusion and ask if the Board's deduction is `reasonable.' (Cites omitted.) The inquiry at this first level of review may be termed a `question of law.' (Cites omitted.) At the second level of review, we inquire into the nexus between the premises or findings of basic facts and the evidence presented to determine if the evidence justified those findings." Id. ( quoting Gold Bond Building Products Division National Gypsum Co. v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1976) 2d Dist., 1983Under this two-tier standard of review, the Review Board's "finding of ultimate fact" is the conclusion, and the "findings of basic facts" are the premises from which the Review Board deduced its conclusion. - Graham v. Review Board, (1979) Ind.App., 386 N.E.2d 699 . *1345 "At the first level of review, we examine only the relationship between the premises and the conclusion and ask if the Board's deduction is 'reasonable' (Citations omitted.) 'The inquiry at this first level of review may be termed a 'question of law.' (Citations omitted.) "At the second level of review, we inquire into the n | 2 | 1983–1989 |
Clark v. Crowe
green
2 sentences2018"A judgment is contrary to law when the evidence is without conflict and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence lead to only one conclusion, but the trial court reached a different conclusion." Clark v. Crowe , 778 N.E.2d 835 , 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). [24] When the trial court has entered findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52 we apply the following two-tier standard of review: whether the evidence supports the findings and whether the findings support the judgment. 2018Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of Waltz v. Daviess County Department of Public Welfare neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| K-Mart Corp. v. Morrison green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Habig Trucking & Excavating, Inc. v. Public Service Commission green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| City of Evansville v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Fadden v. Cambridge Mutual Fire Insurance green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Warren v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Co. neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.