64 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1855–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Front Row Motors, LLC and Jerramy Johnson v. Scott Jonesgreen1 sentence2025When an appellee fails to submit an appellate brief, “we will reverse the trial court’s judgment if the appellant’s brief presents a case of prima facie error.” Front Row Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1936 | November 26, 2025 Page 5 of 12 Motors, LLC v. Jones, 5 N.E.3d 753, 758 (Ind. 2014) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Indiana, Inc.green1 sentence2020See Jarboe, 644 N.E.2d at 123 . | 1 | 1 |
Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc.green1 sentence2020The general rule is that vicarious liability can be imposed when an employer, who is not liable because of his own acts, is found responsible “for the wrongful acts of his employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind. 1999) (quotation and citation omitted). “[C]onduct is Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-873 | May 26, 2020 Page 22 of 33 within the scope of employment when it is ‘of the same general nature as that authorized, or incidental to the conduct authorized.’” Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99, 107 (Ind. | 1 | 1 |
Celebration Fireworks, Inc. v. Smithgreen1 sentence2020The general rule is that vicarious liability can be imposed when an employer, who is not liable because of his own acts, is found responsible “for the wrongful acts of his employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind. 1999) (quotation and citation omitted). “[C]onduct is Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-873 | May 26, 2020 Page 22 of 33 within the scope of employment when it is ‘of the same general nature as that authorized, or incidental to the conduct authorized.’” Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99, 107 (Ind. | 1 | 1 |
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Muncie v. Yonghong Chenggreen1 sentence2020Westminster Presbyterian Church of Muncie v. Yonghong Cheng, 992 N.E.2d 859, 868 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Walgreen Co. v. Abigail E. Hinchygreen1 sentence2020The general rule is that vicarious liability can be imposed when an employer, who is not liable because of his own acts, is found responsible “for the wrongful acts of his employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind. 1999) (quotation and citation omitted). “[C]onduct is Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-CT-873 | May 26, 2020 Page 22 of 33 within the scope of employment when it is ‘of the same general nature as that authorized, or incidental to the conduct authorized.’” Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99, 107 (Ind. | 1 | 1 |
Prange v. Martingreen1 sentence2019Husainy presented no evidence of actual damages and further, counsel for Husainy in final argument, argued that Husainy was merely inconvenienced by certain maintenance issues during his occupancy.” Appealed Order at 1. [13] “Damages are particularly a jury determination.” Prange v. Martin, 629 N.E.2d 915, 922 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Puckett v. Millergreen2 sentences2017See Puckett v. Miller, 178 Ind. App. 174, 182-183 , 381 N.E.2d 1087, 1092-1093 (1978) (noting that “The comments of the Civil Code Study Commission with regards to TR 41(B) states, ‘This fulfills the function of a motion for a directed verdict in a jury case (a motion for judgment on the evidence under Rule 50). 2017See Puckett v. Miller, 178 Ind. App. 174, 182-183 , 381 N.E.2d 1087, 1092-1093 (1978) (noting that “The comments of the Civil Code Study Commission with regards to TR 41(B) states, ‘This fulfills the function of a motion for a directed verdict in a jury case (a motion for judgment on the evidence under Rule 50). | 1 | 1 |
Alva Electric, Inc. v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp.green1 sentence2017Corp., 7 N.E.3d 263, 267 (Ind. 2014) (citing Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of the Walter Penner Trust Under Agreement Created by the Grantor, Walter Penner on April 13, 2010, Stanley Penner v. Ronald Pennergreen1 sentence2016Under Indiana Appellate Rule 67, this court may sua sponte award appellate attorney fees to a prevailing party if an appeal “is ‘permeated with meritlessness, bad faith, frivolity, harassment, vexatiousness, or purpose of delay.’ ” In re Walter Penner Trust, 22 N.E.3d 593, 602 (Ind.Ct. *998 App.2014) (quoting GEICO v. Rowell, 705 N.E.2d 476 , 483 n. 12 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)), trains, denied. | 1 | 1 |
Filip v. Blockgreen1 sentence2014See generally Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076, 1081 (Ind. 2008). 4 granted Appellees’ motion, concluding that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Dr. Szymanski and GYN, and to the extent necessary the unnamed physician, Joseph Smith, M.D. | 1 | 1 |
Neff v. Indiana State University Board of Trustees ex rel. Indiana State Universitygreen1 sentence2014Bd. of Trustees, 538 N.E.2d 255, 259 (Ind.Ct.App.1989) (citing Stucco Cotton Duster Co. v. Comet Elec. | 1 | 1 |
Dunifon v. Iovinogreen1 sentence2012As a general rule, “[a] person’s status on the land, along with the duty owed, is a matter left for determination by the trial court, not the jury.” Dunifon v. Iovino, 665 N.E.2d 51, 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Kelly v. Levandoskigreen1 sentence2012See Kelly v. Levandoski, 825 N.E.2d 850 , 857 n.2 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (“[A]ny argument an appellant fails to raise in his initial brief is waived for appeal.”), trans. denied.5 In sum, we affirm the trial court’s grant of Appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Younginergreen2 sentences2012“Punitive damages may be awarded only if there is clear and convincing evidence that [the] defendant acted with malice, fraud, gross negligence, or oppressiveness which was not the result of a mistake of fact or law, honest error or judgment, overzealousness, mere negligence, or other human failing.” Williams v. Younginer, 851 N.E.2d 351, 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. 2012“Punitive damages may be awarded only if there is clear and convincing evidence that [the] defendant acted with malice, fraud, gross negligence, or oppressiveness which was not the result of a mistake of fact or law, honest error or judgment, overzealousness, mere negligence, or other human failing.” Williams v. Younginer, 851 N.E.2d 351, 358 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Wayne County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals v. United Ancient Order of Druids-Grove 29green1 sentence2009"The standard of appellate review of rulings on motions to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds depends on whether the trial court resolved disputed facts, and if so, whether the trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing or ruled on a paper record." Wayne County Property Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals v. United Ancient Order of Druids-Grove No. 29, 847 N.E.2d 924, 926 (Ind.2006). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Grzeskowiakgreen2 sentences2008As another panel of this court said just last week, “in interpreting Indiana’s election laws, we respect the franchise: ‘In the absence of fraud, election statutes generally will be liberally construed to guarantee to the elector an opportunity to freely cast his ballot, to prevent his disenfranchisement and to uphold the will of the electorate.’ ” Curley v. Lake County Board of Elections and Registration, 896 N.E.2d 24, 34 , 2008 WL 4757335 , at *7 (Ind.Ct.App.,2008) (quoting Brown v. Grzeskowiak, 230 Ind. 110, 128 , 101 N.E.2d 639, 646 (1951)). 2008As another panel of this court said just last week, “in interpreting Indiana’s election laws, we respect the franchise: ‘In the absence of fraud, election statutes generally will be liberally construed to guarantee to the elector an opportunity to freely cast his ballot, to prevent his disenfranchisement and to uphold the will of the electorate.’ ” Curley v. Lake County Board of Elections and Registration, 896 N.E.2d 24, 34 , 2008 WL 4757335 , at *7 (Ind.Ct.App.,2008) (quoting Brown v. Grzeskowiak, 230 Ind. 110, 128 , 101 N.E.2d 639, 646 (1951)). | 1 | 1 |
| Indiana State Board of Health Facility Administrators v. Wernergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Krimendahl v. Common Councilgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Burke v. Burkegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re JC
green
2 sentences2009In support, the Appellees rely on In re the Matter of J.C., 735 N.E.2d 848 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), in which a panel of this court concluded that a statutory basis existed to order the predecessor of DCS, the local child welfare service office, to pay fees associated with services provided by the GAL. 735 N.E.2d at 849 . 2009In support, the Appellees rely on In re the Matter of J.C., 735 N.E.2d 848 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), in which a panel of this court concluded that a statutory basis existed to order the predecessor of DCS, the local child welfare service office, to pay fees associated with services provided by the GAL. 735 N.E.2d at 849 . | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Baker v. Chambers
neutral
1 sentence2020Indiana Code Chapter 32-17-4 does not prohibit such motions, and this Court reviewed a summary judgment ruling in a partition action in Baker v. Chambers, 398 N.E.2d 1350 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980). 4 Consequently, we reject Hallett’s argument that the mediated agreement finally disposed of the matter and thus Appellees’ motion to reconsider was untimely and they were required to provide her with “new service of process[.]” Appellant’s Br. at 15. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker
green
1 sentence2019Grdinich contends that the trial court erred in granting Appellees' motion to dismiss Count 1 based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies. [13] "It is well-established that, if an administrative remedy is available, it must be pursued before a claimant is allowed access to the courts." Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker , 726 N.E.2d 1217 , 1224 (Ind. 2000). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Mary Alice Manley, and Gary Manley v. Ryan J. Sherer, M.D., and Sherer Family Medicine, P.C.
green
1 sentence2019In particular, the Appellees claim that Wilkes's designations in opposition to summary judgment were inadequate in that: "he designated no evidence that any Appellee assumed responsibility to secure Wilkes's cargo, no evidence that the load had been defectively placed in the trailer; no evidence that an experienced truck driver like Wilkes would have failed to appreciate any alleged defect, no evidence that anyone assured Wilkes that the load had been properly secured for him, and no evidence that Wilkes did not have an opportunity to inspect the load (which he, in fact, did)." Appellees' Brie | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Julie Kitchell v. Ted Franklin, as the Mayor of the City of Logansport, and the Common Council of the City of Logansport
green
1 sentence2018Kitchell v. Franklin , 997 N.E.2d 1020 , 1025 (Ind. 2013). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Don Morris v. Brad Crain
green
1 sentence2018Morris v. Crain , 71 N.E.3d 871 , 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Long v. IVC Industrial Coatings, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Long, 908 N.E.2d at 702 (quoting Argyelan, 435 N.E.2d at 976 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Geico Insurance v. Rowell
green
1 sentence2016Under Indiana Appellate Rule 67, this court may sua sponte award appellate attorney fees to a prevailing party if an appeal “is ‘permeated with meritlessness, bad faith, frivolity, harassment, vexatiousness, or purpose of delay.’ ” In re Walter Penner Trust, 22 N.E.3d 593, 602 (Ind.Ct. *998 App.2014) (quoting GEICO v. Rowell, 705 N.E.2d 476 , 483 n. 12 (Ind.Ct.App.1999)), trains, denied. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Argyelan v. Haviland
green
1 sentence2016Long, 908 N.E.2d at 702 (quoting Argyelan, 435 N.E.2d at 976 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Winbush v. Memorial Health System, Inc.
green
1 sentence2014Discussion of Relevant Prior Appellate Decisions In Winbush, 581 N.E.2d at 1241 , a medical malpractice case, the hospitals and physicians named in Winbush’s complaint (collectively, “the defendants”) sought summary judgment. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Templin v. Fobes
green
1 sentence2014Discussion of Relevant Prior Appellate Decisions In Templin, 617 N.E.2d at 542 , the Templins filed a complaint against Fobes alleging negligence on August 28, 1989. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Evans v. State
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 386-87 . 5 Here, the trial court had granted Adams three extensions of time to respond to the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment and three continuances of the hearing set on that motion. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Markle v. Hacienda Mexican Restaurant
green
1 sentence2012The question is whether Winfrey’s actions following his doctor’s appointment transformed him into a licensee, lowering Appellees’ standard of care to him. “[E]ven though a visitor may be an invitee when he comes on to the property, his status may change to that of a licensee while he is on the premises if the use to which he puts the property does not correspond to the owner’s reason for holding the property open.” Id. at 974 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| Martin Bros. Box Co. v. Orem green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Curley v. LAKE CTY BD. OF ELECTIONS REGIS. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Vakos v. Travelers Insurance green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| California v. Hodari D. green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Winona Memorial Foundation of Indianapolis v. Lomax green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Biggs v. Marsh green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Orkin Exterminating Co., Inc. v. Traina green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| United States Auto Club, Inc. v. Woodward green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Hansbrough v. Indiana Revenue Board green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Starke Memorial Hospital v. Todd Equipment Leasing Co. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. KRASZYK ET UX. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| State Ex Rel. Calumet National Bank v. McCord green | 1 | 1967–1967 |
| Fairchild v. Steiner neutral | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Kimble v. Jolly neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Inter State Motor Freight System v. Henry green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Williams v. Williams, Admr. green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| Wischmeyer v. Fisher neutral | 1 | 1964–1964 |
| In Re Estate of Bauer v. Bauer neutral | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Bowers v. Thornburg green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| JOHN'S CASH FURN. STORES, INC. v. Mitchell green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Cincinnati, Union, & Fort Wayne Railroad v. Wynne neutral | 1 | 1961–1961 |
| Butler v. Wolf Sussman, Inc. green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Loeser v. Simpson green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Workman v. Workman green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Potter v. Emery neutral | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Kenworthy v. Williams green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
| Reed v. Watson green | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.