authorities doctrine (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

authorities doctrine in Indiana

8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1876–1971 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana.

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 (13)

CaseCitedYears
Krauss v. State neutral
ind · 1951
2 sentences

1971Krauss v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 625 , 100 N. E. 2d 824 .

1971Krauss v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 625 , 100 N. E. 2d 824 .

11971–1971
Schutz v. Leary neutral
indctapp · 1952
2 sentences

1962This court in the case of Schutz v. Leary (1952), 123 Ind. App. 100 , 106 N. E. 2d 705 , at 123 Ind. App. page 106, stated: “While the qualifications of the privileged communications rule in this state has not been extended to apply to such communications between an attorney and a client in the preparation and execution of a deed, it is apparent upon sound reasoning and a consideration of the authorities that the exception to the general rule regarding privileged communications should apply in the case of the circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of a deed the same as it does

1962This court in the case of Schutz v. Leary (1952), 123 Ind. App. 100 , 106 N. E. 2d 705 , at 123 Ind. App. page 106, stated: “While the qualifications of the privileged communications rule in this state has not been extended to apply to such communications between an attorney and a client in the preparation and execution of a deed, it is apparent upon sound reasoning and a consideration of the authorities that the exception to the general rule regarding privileged communications should apply in the case of the circumstances surrounding the preparation and execution of a deed the same as it does

11962–1962
Pennsylvania Co. v. Roney neutral
ind · 1883
1 sentence

1911Pennsylvania Co. v. Roney (1883), 89 Ind. 453, 457 , 46 Am.

11911–1911
State ex rel. Colscott v. King green
ind · 1900
1 sentence

1903In State, ex rel., v. King, 154 Ind. 621 , and State, ex rel., v. Brockman, 154 Ind. 695 , the court upheld the right of the Mr. Colscott, mentioned in the answer now before us, to examine the public records of the county auditor .and the county treasurer, to discover the condition of the public revenue, and to ascertain if the affairs of the county had been honestly and faithfully administered by the public officials.

11903–1903
State ex rel. Colscott v. Brockman neutral
ind · 1900
1 sentence

1903In State, ex rel., v. King, 154 Ind. 621 , and State, ex rel., v. Brockman, 154 Ind. 695 , the court upheld the right of the Mr. Colscott, mentioned in the answer now before us, to examine the public records of the county auditor .and the county treasurer, to discover the condition of the public revenue, and to ascertain if the affairs of the county had been honestly and faithfully administered by the public officials.

11903–1903
Town Council of Cahaba v. Burnett green
· 1859
1 sentence

1892In the case of Peckham, v. Hendren, 76 Ind. 47 , the court quotes with approval the following language from Town Council of Cahaba v. Burnett, 34 Ala. 400 : “ No man can be heard to say that he had the right and the law with him, but he feared his adversary would carry him into court, and that being thereby deprived of his free will, he yielded to the wrong, and the court must assist him.” A person who is conscious of being in the right should not decide his case against himself by tamely yielding to the demands of another who is in the wrong and then ask the court to protect him.

11892–1892
Peckham v. Hendren green
ind · 1881
1 sentence

1892In the case of Peckham, v. Hendren, 76 Ind. 47 , the court quotes with approval the following language from Town Council of Cahaba v. Burnett, 34 Ala. 400 : “ No man can be heard to say that he had the right and the law with him, but he feared his adversary would carry him into court, and that being thereby deprived of his free will, he yielded to the wrong, and the court must assist him.” A person who is conscious of being in the right should not decide his case against himself by tamely yielding to the demands of another who is in the wrong and then ask the court to protect him.

11892–1892
Hichcox v. Eastman neutral
ind · 1847
1 sentence

1886Juris. 541; Kelly v. Stinson, 8 Blackf. 387 ; Young v. Pickens, 49 Ind. 23 ; Holdich v. Holdich, 2 Y. & C.

11886–1886
Young v. Pickens green
ind · 1874
1 sentence

1886Juris. 541; Kelly v. Stinson, 8 Blackf. 387 ; Young v. Pickens, 49 Ind. 23 ; Holdich v. Holdich, 2 Y. & C.

11886–1886
Durham v. State neutral
ind · 1819
1 sentence

1885State v. Kuns, 5 Blackf. 314 ; Durham v. State, 1 Blackf. 33 ; State v. Hutzell, 53 Ind. 160 .

11885–1885
State v. Kuns neutral
ind · 1840
1 sentence

1885State v. Kuns, 5 Blackf. 314 ; Durham v. State, 1 Blackf. 33 ; State v. Hutzell, 53 Ind. 160 .

11885–1885
State v. Hutzell neutral
ind · 1876
1 sentence

1885State v. Kuns, 5 Blackf. 314 ; Durham v. State, 1 Blackf. 33 ; State v. Hutzell, 53 Ind. 160 .

11885–1885
Lane v. Albright green
ind · 1874
1 sentence

1876The case of Lane v. Albright, 49 Ind. 275 , is in harmony with the above authorities in principle, though not in point as to fact with the case we are considering.

11876–1876

Where else courts name it

TX 32 (1895–2015) CA 27 (1912–2003) NY 26 (1882–2004) IL 16 (1874–2021) MO 15 (1894–1967) PA 13 (1867–2003) FL 10 (1891–2023) AL 9 (1871–2011) OK 8 (1912–2023) KS 8 (1899–1997) IN 8 (1876–1971) WI 7 (1864–2005) GA 7 (1899–1978) MT 6 (1925–2009) MS 6 (1870–2014) KY 6 (1910–1939) VA 6 (1914–1983) AR 5 (1894–1942) OR 5 (1890–1933) WA 5 (1894–2012) NC 4 (1929–1963) MI 4 (1940–2006) MD 4 (1928–2014) TN 4 (1914–2006) MN 4 (1895–1950) WV 4 (1923–2014) MA 3 (1980–2009) IA 3 (1904–1962) ID 3 (1925–2011) NJ 3 (1956–1964) LA 3 (1942–1984) NM 3 (1896–1944) SD 3 (1903–1928) ME 2 (1947–1952) OH 2 (1925–1992) SC 2 (1970–2012) UT 2 (1914–1922) NE 2 (1910–1934) AZ 2 (1931–1953) CT 2 (1933–1950) NV 2 (1895–1932)

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