harsh rule (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

harsh rule in Indiana

9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1890–2023 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Carroll-Boone Water District v. M. & P. Equipment Co.green
ark · 1983 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Co., 661 S.W.2d 345, 351 (Ark. 1983) (noting “[s]trict liability is a harsh rule” and should not be applied “when blasting is conducted on the property damaged with the knowledge and consent of the owner”); cf. Guido v. N.Y.

11
Faust v. Thomasgreen
indctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
1 sentence

2003Faust v. Thomas, 535 N.E.2d 164, 165 (Ind.Ct.App.1989).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
Coleman v. MITNICK, ETC. green
indctapp · 1964
2 sentences

1973In Coleman v. Mitnick (1964), 137 Ind. App. 125 , 202 N.E.2d 577 , one citizen caused the arrest of another for violation of a subsequently invalidated ordinance and liability was imposed for false imprisonment.

1973In Coleman v. Mitnick (1964), 137 Ind. App. 125 , 202 N.E.2d 577 , one citizen caused the arrest of another for violation of a subsequently invalidated ordinance and liability was imposed for false imprisonment.

11973–1973
City of Pekin v. McMahon green
ill · 1895
1 sentence

1953This court has examined many of the cases cited in appellant’s brief and finds that since the decision of the Plotzki case, supra, many courts have refused to adopt the more “liberal” view and have adopted the thinking of the court in the Plotzki case, supra, and City of Pekin v. McMahon (1895), 154 Ill. 141 , 39 N. E. 484 (See Torts — Application of Attractive Nuisance Doctrine to Ponds and Pools) 26 Notre Dame Lawyer, p. 154-156.

11953–1953
Brown v. Doak Co. green
ind · 1922
2 sentences

1935The Supreme Court did not see fit to follow the recommendation of this court, See Brown v. Doak Co. (1922), 192 Ind. 113 , *569 135 N. E. 343 .

1935The Supreme Court did not see fit to follow the recommendation of this court, See Brown v. Doak Co. (1922), 192 Ind. 113 , *569 135 N. E. 343 .

11935–1935
Zarecki v. Guarantee Realty Co. neutral
njch · 1914
2 sentences

1928Eq. 489 , 89 A. 513 ; Bradshaw v. Provident Trust Co. (1916), 81 Or. 55 , 158 P. 274 ; Archer v. California Lumber Co. (1893), 24 Or. 341 , 33 P. 526 ; Albany City Sav.

1928It would be a harsh rule if a person applying to an insurance agent, who is supposed to know the legal value of the language used in such policies, which he is drawing up every day, and who is supposed to know exactly what is desired, if that agent fails to do that which was intended, it would be harsh to say that the instrument shall not be reformed, and that chancery shall not give relief." For other leading cases on this subject see Zarecki v. Guarantee Realty Co. (1914), 82 N.J.

11928–1928
Bradshaw v. Provident Trust Co. green
or · 1916
2 sentences

1928Eq. 489 , 89 A. 513 ; Bradshaw v. Provident Trust Co. (1916), 81 Or. 55 , 158 P. 274 ; Archer v. California Lumber Co. (1893), 24 Or. 341 , 33 P. 526 ; Albany City Sav.

1928Eq. 489 , 89 A. 513 ; Bradshaw v. Provident Trust Co. (1916), 81 Or. 55 , 158 P. 274 ; Archer v. California Lumber Co. (1893), 24 Or. 341 , 33 P. 526 ; Albany City Sav.

11928–1928
Archer v. California Lumber Co. green
or · 1893
2 sentences

1928Eq. 489 , 89 A. 513 ; Bradshaw v. Provident Trust Co. (1916), 81 Or. 55 , 158 P. 274 ; Archer v. California Lumber Co. (1893), 24 Or. 341 , 33 P. 526 ; Albany City Sav.

1928Eq. 489 , 89 A. 513 ; Bradshaw v. Provident Trust Co. (1916), 81 Or. 55 , 158 P. 274 ; Archer v. California Lumber Co. (1893), 24 Or. 341 , 33 P. 526 ; Albany City Sav.

11928–1928
Lee v. Hefley neutral
ind · 1863
1 sentence

1921We therefore transfer this case to the Supreme Court for its consideration and respectfully recommend that the case of Lee v. Hefley, supra, be overruled.

11921–1921
Bennett v. Root Furniture Co. green
ind · 1911
2 sentences

1915In the case of Bennett v. Root Furniture Co. (1911), 176 Ind. 606, 608 , 96 N. E. 708 , the court said: “Appellants have not set out in their brief any motion for a new trial or the substance thereof, nor any ground assigned therefor, as required by Eule 22 of this court.

1915In the case of Bennett v. Root Furniture Co. (1911), 176 Ind. 606, 608 , 96 N. E. 708 , the court said: “Appellants have not set out in their brief any motion for a new trial or the substance thereof, nor any ground assigned therefor, as required by Eule 22 of this court.

11915–1915
Haymond v. Saucer green
ind · 1882
1 sentence

1890Haymond v. Saucer, 84 Ind. 3 .

11890–1890

Where else courts name it

CA 59 (1891–2026) TX 58 (1889–2018) NY 34 (1876–2025) PA 24 (1827–2018) IL 24 (1899–2020) MO 23 (1885–2016) FL 17 (1920–2010) GA 17 (1950–2012) KS 16 (1906–2022) IA 15 (1889–2018) OR 13 (1920–2025) OK 13 (1914–2001) LA 13 (1926–1994) WA 13 (1901–2009) CT 13 (1914–2010) WV 12 (1882–2003) MA 11 (1888–2018) NJ 10 (1950–2004) OH 10 (1914–2013) MI 10 (1926–1994) ID 9 (1966–2011) NC 9 (1911–2004) IN 9 (1890–2023) HI 9 (1923–2003) CO 9 (1930–2017) AL 8 (1895–1996) KY 8 (1917–2005) WI 8 (1900–2019) MN 7 (1947–1986) AR 7 (1978–2018) AZ 6 (1913–1979) TN 6 (1966–2005) SD 6 (1914–1996) MD 6 (1948–2014) ND 6 (1913–1991) VA 5 (1918–1998) SC 5 (1927–2001) WY 5 (1895–1988) VT 4 (1868–2014) MT 4 (1896–1947) RI 3 (1978–1999) NE 3 (1998–2019) AK 3 (1991–2019) DE 3 (1915–2021) NM 3 (1943–1995) VI 2 (1982–2014) NH 2 (1976–2018) DC 2 (1978–1980)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check