9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aronson v. Pricegreen2 sentences2012David moved for summary judgment arguing that Edward personally and all of his corporations are liable for potential damages in this action under the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil.” The trial court denied David’s motion.19 As a general rule, shareholders are not personally liable for the acts of a corporation, Aronson v. Price, 644 N.E.2d 864, 867 (Ind. 1994) (citation omitted), and a corporation is not liable for the acts of related corporations. 2012David moved for summary judgment arguing that Edward personally and all of his corporations are liable for potential damages in this action under the doctrine of “piercing the corporate veil.” The trial court denied David’s motion. 19 As a general rule, shareholders are not personally liable for the acts of a corporation, Aronson v. Price, 644 N.E.2d 864, 867 (Ind.1994) (citation omitted), and a corporation is not liable for the acts of related corporations. | 2 | 2 |
GREATER HAMMOND COMMUNITY SERV., INC. v. Mutkagreen2 sentences2012Greater Hammond Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Mutka, 735 N.E.2d 780, 784 (Ind. 2000) (citing William Meade Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations §§ 41.10, 43, at 568, 711 (1999)). 2012Greater Hammond Cmty. Servs., Inc. v. Mutka, 735 N.E.2d 780, 784 (Ind.2000) (citing William Meade Fletcher, Fletcher Cyclopedia of the Law of Private Corporations §§ 41.10, 43, at 568, 711 (1999)). | 2 | 2 |
Fisher v. Estate of Haleygreen1 sentence2020Linda argues that this order was erroneous. [32] The general purpose of the Dead Man’s Statute “is to protect a decedent’s estate from spurious claims.” Fisher v. Estate of Haley, 695 N.E.2d 1022, 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (interpreting prior version of statute that was virtually identical to current one). | 1 | 1 |
Mann v. Manngreen1 sentence2017See Mann v. Mann, 528 N.E.2d 821, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Gilbertgreen1 sentence2004Child Support and Pass-through Income We review an award of child support for an abuse of discretion." Gilbert v. Gilbert, 777 N.E.2d 785, 790 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). | 1 | 1 |
Horine v. Greencastle Production Credit Ass'ngreen2 sentences1996See Horine, 505 N.E.2d at 804 . 1996See Horine, 505 N.E.2d at 804 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Watters v. Dinn
green
1 sentence2004Id. at 486-37 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences2001Similar to the instructions in Chandler, Williams, and the present case, the David instruction contains the defective sentence that possession of a large amount of nar-coties is cireumstantial evidence of intent to deliver, see Chandler, 581 N.E.2d at 1236 ; Williams, 658 N.E.2d at 604 , (R. at 162), and thus standing alone the sentence improperly commands the jury to make such a finding. 2001Similar to the instructions in Chandler, Williams, and the present case, the David instruction contains the defective sentence that possession of a large amount of nar-coties is cireumstantial evidence of intent to deliver, see Chandler, 581 N.E.2d at 1236 ; Williams, 658 N.E.2d at 604 , (R. at 162), and thus standing alone the sentence improperly commands the jury to make such a finding. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Chandler v. State
green
2 sentences2001Similar to the instructions in Chandler, Williams, and the present case, the David instruction contains the defective sentence that possession of a large amount of nar-coties is cireumstantial evidence of intent to deliver, see Chandler, 581 N.E.2d at 1236 ; Williams, 658 N.E.2d at 604 , (R. at 162), and thus standing alone the sentence improperly commands the jury to make such a finding. 2001Similar to the instructions in Chandler, Williams, and the present case, the David instruction contains the defective sentence that possession of a large amount of nar-coties is cireumstantial evidence of intent to deliver, see Chandler, 581 N.E.2d at 1236 ; Williams, 658 N.E.2d at 604 , (R. at 162), and thus standing alone the sentence improperly commands the jury to make such a finding. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Sholes v. Sholes
green
2 sentences2001Sholes v. Sholes, 732 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind.App.2000). 2001Sholes v. Sholes, 732 N.E.2d 1252 (Ind.App.2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Watters v. Dinn
green
2 sentences1996Specifically, William and Vicki argue that this court's decision in Watters, 633 N.E.2d 280 , in which they believe we held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding their claim for invasion of privacy, established the law of the case such that summary disposal of this issue was inappropriate. 1996Specifically, William and Vicki argue that this court’s decision in Watters, 633 N.E.2d 280 , in which they believe we held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding their claim for invasion of privacy, established the law of the case such that summary disposal of this issue was inappropriate. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.