Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1913–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peters, Administrator v. Hanlingreen2 sentences2009These conclusions are supported by our holding in a somewhat older case, Peters v. Hanlin, 220 Ind. 175 , 41 N.E.2d 604, 605 (1942). 2009These conclusions are supported by our holding in a somewhat older case, Peters v. Hanlin, 220 Ind. 175 , 41 N.E.2d 604, 605 (1942). | 1 | 2 |
Gleeson v. Preferred Sourcing, LLCgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Gleeson, 883 N.E.2d at 175-77 ; MacGill v. Reid, 850 N.E.2d 926, 931-32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006); Burk v. Heritage Food Serv. | 1 | 1 |
MacGill v. Reidgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., Gleeson, 883 N.E.2d at 175-77 ; MacGill v. Reid, 850 N.E.2d 926, 931-32 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006); Burk v. Heritage Food Serv. | 1 | 1 |
City of Crown Point v. Lake Countygreen1 sentence2013The Indiana Supreme Court, however, has held that this provision does not bar municipalities "from enforcing against other political subdivisions those regulations of general applicability which are specifically authorized by statute." City of Crown Point v. Lake Cnty. 510 N.E.2d 684, 686 (Ind.1987); see Town of Avon v. W. | 1 | 1 |
Romine v. Gaglegreen1 sentence2008We also observe that Indiana Code section 29 — 3—10—1(d) does not require a claim to be filed against the guardianship estate in light of the provision that a claim “may” be filed “with the court ... before the claim is barred by the statute of limitations.” See Romine v. Gagle, 782 N.E.2d 369, 380 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (observing that the term “may” in a statute typically implies a permissive condition and a grant of discretion). | 1 | 1 |
Indiana Department of Correction v. Stagggreen1 sentence2000See Ind. Dept. of Correction v. Stagg, 556 N.E.2d 1338, 1343 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (holding that government was immune from liability under the discretionary function subsection of the Act, but also noting that misrepresentation in that case was not intentional); Parke County v. Ropak, Inc., 526 N.E.2d 732, 738 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (holding that immunity for unintentional misrepresentation does not apply if misrepresentations were intentional.). 3 . 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) (1982). | 1 | 1 |
Parke County v. Ropak, Inc.green1 sentence2000See Ind. Dept. of Correction v. Stagg, 556 N.E.2d 1338, 1343 (Ind.Ct.App.1990) (holding that government was immune from liability under the discretionary function subsection of the Act, but also noting that misrepresentation in that case was not intentional); Parke County v. Ropak, Inc., 526 N.E.2d 732, 738 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (holding that immunity for unintentional misrepresentation does not apply if misrepresentations were intentional.). 3 . 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b) (1982). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Neustadt
green
2 sentences2000In particular, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 , 81 S.Ct. 1294 , 6 L.Ed.2d 614 (1961) is helpful to our resolution of this issue. 2000In particular, the decision of the United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Neustadt, 366 U.S. 696 , 81 S.Ct. 1294 , 6 L.Ed.2d 614 (1961) is helpful to our resolution of this issue. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hobson v. State
green
1 sentence1985Hobson v. State (1984), Ind., 471 N.E.2d 281 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1980In Eisen IV, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin (1974), 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 , the Supreme Court determined that the plain language of the rule, the Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 23 (which our study commission commended), and the due process principles of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 require that individual notice must be provided to all members of the class who are identifiable through reasonable effort. 417 U.S. 176 , 94 S.Ct. 2151 . 1980In Eisen IV, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin (1974), 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 , the Supreme Court determined that the plain language of the rule, the Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 23 (which our study commission commended), and the due process principles of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 require that individual notice must be provided to all members of the class who are identifiable through reasonable effort. 417 U.S. 176 , 94 S.Ct. 2151 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin
green
2 sentences1980In Eisen IV, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin (1974), 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 , the Supreme Court determined that the plain language of the rule, the Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 23 (which our study commission commended), and the due process principles of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 require that individual notice must be provided to all members of the class who are identifiable through reasonable effort. 417 U.S. 176 , 94 S.Ct. 2151 . 1980In Eisen IV, Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin (1974), 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 , the Supreme Court determined that the plain language of the rule, the Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 23 (which our study commission commended), and the due process principles of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. (1950), 339 U.S. 306 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 require that individual notice must be provided to all members of the class who are identifiable through reasonable effort. 417 U.S. 176 , 94 S.Ct. 2151 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
DOAN v. City of Fort Wayne
green
1 sentence1972Therefore, it was unnecessary for the trial court to conduct a hearing on the merits of the remonstrance to determine if the six specifications for annexation have been complied with. *355 Remonstrators-appellants based their case on the holding in the case of Doan v. City of Fort Wayne (1969), 144 Ind. 517 , 252 N. E. 2d 415 , 19 Ind. Dec. 255 , and cite from that opinion: “Moreover, we are compelled by our examination of this section (Sec. 48-702, supra) to conclude that an owner of land may not validly waiver his right to remonstrate against future annexations, unless expressly authorized t | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Crawford v. Burke
green
2 sentences1913In connection with this state of the law on the subject prior to the act of 1905 counsel quote from Crawford v. Burke (1904), 195 U. S. 176 , 25 Sup. Ct. 9, 49 L. 1913In connection with this state of the law on the subject prior to the act of 1905 counsel quote from Crawford v. Burke (1904), 195 U. S. 176 , 25 Sup. Ct. 9, 49 L. | 1 | 1913–1913 |
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.