9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2014 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Andersongreen1 sentence2014See id. (holding that attorney engaged in misconduct by filing the same claim in superior court after having been unsuccessful in small claims court and concluding that the subsequent suit was “res judicata because it was the exact claim litigated to conclusion in the small claims court.”); see also Johnson v. Anderson, 590 N.E.2d 1146, 1150 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that Small Claims Rule 11(F) 4 limits the application of res judicata to allow only claim preclusion). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Aultgreen1 sentence2014See id. (holding that attorney engaged in misconduct by filing the same claim in superior court after having been unsuccessful in small claims court and concluding that the subsequent suit was “res judicata because it was the exact claim litigated to conclusion in the small claims court.”); see also Johnson v. Anderson, 590 N.E.2d 1146, 1150 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (holding that Small Claims Rule 11(F) 4 limits the application of res judicata to allow only claim preclusion). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Stategreen2 sentences1989See also Turner v. State (1972) 258 Ind. 267 , 280 N.E.2d 621 ; Gertchen v. State (1973), 158 Ind.App. 691 , 304 N.E.2d 335 . 1989See also Turner v. State (1972) 258 Ind. 267 , 280 N.E.2d 621 ; Gertchen v. State (1973), 158 Ind.App. 691 , 304 N.E.2d 335 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wisehart v. State
green
1 sentence2004We dealt with this exact claim in Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23 (Ind.1998). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gertchen v. State
neutral
2 sentences1989See also Turner v. State (1972) 258 Ind. 267 , 280 N.E.2d 621 ; Gertchen v. State (1973), 158 Ind.App. 691 , 304 N.E.2d 335 . 1989See also Turner v. State (1972) 258 Ind. 267 , 280 N.E.2d 621 ; Gertchen v. State (1973), 158 Ind.App. 691 , 304 N.E.2d 335 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Kavanagh v. Butorac
green
2 sentences1989Kavanagh, 140 Ind.App. at 145 , 221 N.E.2d at 828 . 1989Kavanagh, 140 Ind.App. at 145 , 221 N.E.2d at 828 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Hartwell v. State
green
2 sentences1989However, this exact instruction was held to be proper in Hartwell v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 445, 451 , 321 N.E.2d 228, 232 . 1989However, this exact instruction was held to be proper in Hartwell v. State (1974), 162 Ind.App. 445, 451 , 321 N.E.2d 228, 232 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
green
2 sentences1989The Supreme Court has, as yet, been unable to settle on an exact standard for assessing the connection between the regulation and the state interest, Nollan, 483 U.S. at 834 , 107 S.Ct. at 3147 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 687-688 , and we see no reason to depart from the standard as stated in Young that there be a "substantial relation" between the two. 1989The Supreme Court has, as yet, been unable to settle on an exact standard for assessing the connection between the regulation and the state interest, Nollan, 483 U.S. at 834 , 107 S.Ct. at 3147 , 97 L.Ed.2d at 687-688 , and we see no reason to depart from the standard as stated in Young that there be a "substantial relation" between the two. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Fry v. State
green
1 sentence1986We approved of this exact instruction in Fry v. State (1983), Ind., 447 N.E.2d 569, 572-573 , and here renew our approval. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Allison v. Boles
green
2 sentences1980Because of the personal nature of each case and since the decision is unique to the particular set of facts our courts have said the trier of facts is to be given “sound discretion” and “liberal discretion” where damages cannot be defined and calculated with mathematical certainty or by an exact standard.” The tests to be used by this Court in determining whether to reverse an action on the grounds of excessive damages were distinctly articulated in Allison v. Boles, (1967) 141 Ind.App. 592, 597-98 , 230 N.E.2d 784 , 787 as follows: “The general rule of law applicable which has been the one re 1980Because of the personal nature of each case and since the decision is unique to the particular set of facts our courts have said the trier of facts is to be given “sound discretion” and “liberal discretion” where damages cannot be defined and calculated with mathematical certainty or by an exact standard.” The tests to be used by this Court in determining whether to reverse an action on the grounds of excessive damages were distinctly articulated in Allison v. Boles, (1967) 141 Ind.App. 592, 597-98 , 230 N.E.2d 784 , 787 as follows: “The general rule of law applicable which has been the one re | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Fenwick v. State
green
2 sentences1959As was said in Link v. Karb (1914), 89 Ohio St. 326 , 104 N. E. 632, 634 , “If the council was . . . authorized to pass this ordinance when it did pass it, if . . . this ordinance were then and there a valid . . . ordinance, requiring only the action of ministerial and executive officers to carry their provisions into full force and effect, it would be idle to say that any subsequent change in the law could affect their validity or render invalid any proceedings of council that were valid at the time such proceedings were held.” It seems to us that the above statement of the Ohio Court express 1959As was said in Link v. Karb (1914), 89 Ohio St. 326 , 104 N.E. 632, 634 , "If the council was ... authorized to pass this ordinance when it did pass it, if ... this ordinance were then and there a valid ... ordinance, requiring only the action of ministerial and executive officers to carry their provisions into full force and effect, it would be idle to say that any subsequent change in the law could affect their validity or render invalid any proceedings of council that were valid at the time such proceedings were held." *575 It seems to us that the above statement of the Ohio Court expresses | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Hopkins v. Jones
neutral
2 sentences1959“It is a maxim of the law that statutes must be construed prospectively, unless they plainly import a different intention on the part of the legislature.” Hopkins v. Jones (1864), 22 Ind. 310, 315 . 1959"It is a maxim of the law that statutes must be construed prospectively, unless they plainly import a different intention on the part of the legislature." Hopkins v. Jones (1864), 22 Ind. 310, 315 . | 1 | 1959–1959 |
Russell v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1955The case of Russell et al. v. Johnson et al. (1943), 220 Ind. 649 , 46 N. E. 2d 219 , cited in the majority opinion, quotes the exact rule before us in this case and upholds that rule as valid. 1955The case of Russell et al. v. Johnson et al. (1943), 220 Ind. 649 , 46 N. E. 2d 219 , cited in the majority opinion, quotes the exact rule before us in this case and upholds that rule as valid. | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.