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 1 courts 2013–2019 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulosgreen2 sentences2019The non-exhaustive factors to be considered by the trial court in deciding whether to apply issue preclusion include: (1) privity, (2) the defendant’s incentive to litigate the prior action, and (3) the ability of the plaintiff to have joined the prior action Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d at 696 (emphasis added). 2018The non-exhaustive factors to be considered by the trial court in deciding whether to apply issue preclusion include: (1) privity, (2) the defendant’s incentive to litigate the prior action, and (3) the ability of the plaintiff to have joined the prior action.” Freels, 94 N.E.3d at 342 (quoting Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied) (emphases added). [10] Here, the trial court did not rule on the merits of Cornett’s 2014 paternity petition. | 4 | 6 |
Janet Freels v. James F. Koches and Sunset Builders, Inc.green2 sentences2018The non-exhaustive factors to be considered by the trial court in deciding whether to apply issue preclusion include: (1) privity, (2) the defendant’s incentive to litigate the prior action, and (3) the ability of the plaintiff to have joined the prior action.” Freels, 94 N.E.3d at 342 (quoting Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied) (emphases added). [10] Here, the trial court did not rule on the merits of Cornett’s 2014 paternity petition. 2018Freels v. Koches, 94 N.E.3d 339, 342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2 N.E.3d 688, 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied). [11] The Airport maintains that collateral estoppel applies here because the parties to the declaratory judgment action are identical, the claims are identical, and the Applicants “raised the exact same standing issue as they raised here.” Appellant’s Br. at 24. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Indianapolis Downs, LLC v. Herr
green
2 sentences2013Id. 2013Id. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
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.