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.
8 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Thornton-Tomasetti Engineers v. Indianapolis-Marion County Public Librarygreen2 sentences2015Library, 851 N.E.2d 1269, 1277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)). [28] In this particular case, in granting Spicklemire’s T.R. 41(B) motion, the trial court ruled that KLR failed to establish a viable ELA claim. 2015Library, 851 N.E.2d 1269, 1277 (Ind.Ct.App.2006)). [28] In this particular case, in -granting Spicklemire’s T.R. 41(B) motion, the trial court ruled that KLR failed to establish a viable ELA claim. | 2 | 2 |
Cooper Industries, LLC v. City of South Bendgreen2 sentences2012We cannot say that a claim brought under the ELA is a claim for contribution where it allows a plaintiff who is neither liable for the release of a hazardous substance nor has been found liable, to recover the costs of remediation from another party “without regard to the plaintiff’s part in causation of the damage.”7 See Cooper, 899 N.E.2d at 1285 . 2012We cannot say that a claim brought under the ELA is a claim for contribution where it allows a plaintiff who is neither liable for the release of a hazardous substance nor has been found liable, to recover the costs of remediation from another party “without regard to the plaintiffs part in causation of the damage.” 7 See Cooper, 899 N.E.2d at 1285 . | 1 | 3 |
Pflanz v. Fostergreen2 sentences2025In concluding that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, the court stated that Section 34- 11-2-11.5(b) affirms the principle that the ELA statute requires “that costs for removal action, etc. be incurred before the lawsuit is filed.” Id. at *9 (emphasis added). [23] Finally, we are also guided by long-standing principles of the American legal system where “demonstrated harm is an indispensable element of virtually Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-3069 | November 7, 2025 Page 12 of 17 every type of civil claim.” Pflanz v. Foster, 888 N.E.2d 756, 758 (Ind. 2008). 2025In concluding that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment, the court stated that Section 34- 11-2-11.5(b) affirms the principle that the ELA statute requires “that costs for removal action, etc. be incurred before the lawsuit is filed.” Id. at *9 (emphasis added). [23] Finally, we are also guided by long-standing principles of the American legal system where “demonstrated harm is an indispensable element of virtually Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-3069 | November 7, 2025 Page 12 of 17 every type of civil claim.” Pflanz v. Foster, 888 N.E.2d 756, 758 (Ind. 2008). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Schuchman/Samberg Investments, Inc. v. Hoosier Penn Oil Co. Inc.
green
2 sentences2018But even if the panel's analysis constitutes "persuasive authority," as the Foundry contends, our analysis of the statute differs. [13] By stating that an ELA plaintiff can recover only "costs incurred not more than ten (10) years before the date the action is brought," I.C. § 34-11-2-11.5(b), the statute plainly says something about "the time frame within which an ELA claim must be brought" and "the events that trigger the running of that period," see Schuchman/Samberg Invs. , 58 N.E.3d at 246 n.5. 2018But even if the panel's analysis constitutes "persuasive authority," as the Foundry contends, our analysis of the statute differs. [13] By stating that an ELA plaintiff can recover only "costs incurred not more than ten (10) years before the date the action is brought," I.C. § 34-11-2-11.5(b), the statute plainly says something about "the time frame within which an ELA claim must be brought" and "the events that trigger the running of that period," see Schuchman/Samberg Invs. , 58 N.E.3d at 246 n.5. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Peniel Group, Inc. v. Bannon
green
1 sentence2016Finding this court’s decision in Peniel Group, Inc. v. Bannon, 973 N.E.2d 575 (Ind.Ct.App.2012), trans. denied, controlling, the trial court concluded that the six-year statute of limitation applies to SSI’s ELA claim. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Bernstein v. Bankert
green
2 sentences2016On appeal, - SSI argues that Peniel is distinguishable and therefore not controlling and that Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190 (7th Cir.2012), in which the Seventh Circuit distinguished Peniel and applied the general, ten-year statute of limitation to an ELA claim, is analogous and persuasive. [15] The ELA provides that: A person may, regardless of whether the person caused or contributed to the release of a hazardous substance or petroleum into the surface or subsurface soil or groundwater that poses a risk to human health and the environment, bring an environmental legal action against a p 2016On appeal, - SSI argues that Peniel is distinguishable and therefore not controlling and that Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190 (7th Cir.2012), in which the Seventh Circuit distinguished Peniel and applied the general, ten-year statute of limitation to an ELA claim, is analogous and persuasive. [15] The ELA provides that: A person may, regardless of whether the person caused or contributed to the release of a hazardous substance or petroleum into the surface or subsurface soil or groundwater that poses a risk to human health and the environment, bring an environmental legal action against a p | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Taylor Farm Ltd. Liability Co. v. Viacom Inc.
green
2 sentences2016The district court concluded that the ELA “is not, on its face, a contribution scheme” because it “permits ‘any person’ to sue to ‘recover the reasonable costs of a removal or remedial action.’” Id. at 962 . 2016The district court concluded that the ELA “is not, on its face, a contribution scheme” because it “permits ‘any person’ to sue to ‘recover the reasonable costs of a removal or remedial action.’” Id. at 962 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Woodruff v. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration
green
1 sentence2012Woodruff, 964 N.E.2d at 790 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.