9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Halcon International, Inc. v. Monsanto Australia Limitedgreen1 sentence2023Ltd., 446 F.2d 156, 159 (7th Cir. 1971). | 1 | 1 |
Greg Allen Const. Co., Inc. v. Estellegreen2 sentences2010See Greg Allen Const. Co., Inc. v. Estelle, 798 N.E.2d 171, 175 (Ind.2003). 2010See Greg Allen Const. Co., Inc. v. Estelle, 798 N.E.2d 171, 175 (Ind.2003). | 1 | 1 |
Integon v. Singletongreen1 sentence2003See also Integon v. Singleton, 795 N.E.2d 511 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (following Eward and parenthetically citing Williams as holding that evidence that driver was intoxicated is sufficient to show willful or wanton misconduct within the meaning of the Guest Statute). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Eward
green
2 sentences2003Although the court did state that Williams held that evidence that a driver was intoxicated at the time of an accident is sufficient to show willful or wanton misconduct within the meaning of the Guest Statute, the Eward court refused to "find that the liability standard for the purposes of the Guest Statute should be the same as the contractual standard under which [the insurer] can enforee an exclusion [to coverage)." Id. at 100 . 2003As a result, the insurer "urge[d] us to find that the liability standard for the purposes of the Guest Statute [was] the same as the contractual standard under which it [could] enforce an exclusion." Id. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
OEC-Diasonics, Inc. v. Major
green
1 sentence2017When interpreting a contract, the contract must be read as a whole and the court should accept an interpretation of the contract that harmonizes its provisions. [ OEC-Diasonics, Inc. v. Major , 674 N.E.2d 1312 , 1315 (Ind. 1996) ]. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Steiner v. Bank One Indiana, N.A.
green
1 sentence2017Steiner v. Bank One Indiana, N.A., 805 N.E.2d 421 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). [28] The portion of the settlement agreement that governs attorney’s fees provides as follows: G. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
O'Halloran v. Toledo Scale Co.
neutral
2 sentences1991O'Halloran v. Toledo Seale Co. (1987), 135 Misc.2d 1098 , 517 N.Y.S.2d 1003 . 1991O'Halloran v. Toledo Seale Co. (1987), 135 Misc.2d 1098 , 517 N.Y.S.2d 1003 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Kneeland v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
green
1 sentence1991ICVA points to Kneeland v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. (1988), 5th Cir., 850 F.2d 224 , in support of its argument that the arrangement between CIB and ICVA did not transform a private corporation into a public entity merely because it received tax dollars. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Boonville
green
2 sentences1974Co. v. Boonville (1969), 252 Ind. 385 , 248 N.E.2d 343 . 1974Co. v. Boonville (1969), 252 Ind. 385 , 248 N.E.2d 343 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.