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 2006–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Murphy v. Target Productsgreen2 sentences2008This would directly conflict with Murphy [v. Target Prods., 580 N.E.2d 687, 690 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), reh'g denied, trans. denied ] as well as the law in most other states that have addressed the specific issue of a third-party spoliation claim by an employee against an employer based on evidence relevant to an industrial accident covered by worker's compensation. 2008This would directly conflict with Murphy [v. Target Prods., 580 N.E.2d 687, 690 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), reh’g denied, trans. denied ] as well as the law in most other states that have addressed the specific issue of a third-party spoliation claim' by an employee against an employer based on evidence relevant to an industrial accident covered by worker’s compensation. | 4 | 4 |
Gribben v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.green2 sentences2024Third-party spoliation claims run the risk of duplicative litigation, see Glotzbach, 854 N.E.2d at 341 (“Proving damages in a third-party spoliation claim becomes highly speculative and involves a lawsuit in which the issue is the outcome of another hypothetical lawsuit.”), and raise concerns of jury confusion and inconsistent results, Gribben, 824 N.E.2d at 355 (quoting Cedars-Sinai Med. 2023“Third-party spoliation refers to spoliation by a non-party.” Id. (citing Gribben, 824 N.E.2d at 350 ). [10] In 1991, this court declined to recognize a third-party spoliation claim. | 1 | 3 |
Glotzbach v. Fromangreen2 sentences2024A year later, this Court took up a third-party spoliation claim in Glotzbach v. Froman, 854 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 2006). 2024Third-party spoliation claims run the risk of duplicative litigation, see Glotzbach, 854 N.E.2d at 341 (“Proving damages in a third-party spoliation claim becomes highly speculative and involves a lawsuit in which the issue is the outcome of another hypothetical lawsuit.”), and raise concerns of jury confusion and inconsistent results, Gribben, 824 N.E.2d at 355 (quoting Cedars-Sinai Med. | 1 | 3 |
Town of St. John v. Home Builders Ass'n of Northern Indiana, Inc.green1 sentence2024John v. Home Builders Ass’n of N. Ind., Inc., 428 N.E.2d 1299, 1302 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (treating a party’s motion to reconsider as a T.R. 60 motion because it substantively met T.R. 60 motion’s requirements), and the trial court did not err in dismissing Safeco’s negligence claim because it is substantively a third-party spoliation claim. | 1 | 1 |
April Goodwin, Tiffany Randolph and Javon Washington v. Yeakle's Sports Bar and Grill, Inc.green1 sentence2024A plaintiff alleging a negligence claim must show: “(1) duty owed to [the] plaintiff by defendant; (2) breach of duty by allowing conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care; and (3) compensable injury proximately caused by defendant’s breach of duty.” Goodwin, 62 N.E.3d at 386 (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson v. Owensbygreen2 sentences2023See Thompson, 704 N.E.2d at 140 . 2023See Thompson, 704 N.E.2d at 139 (providing that the Thompsons could pursue a third-party spoliation claim when the third-party “took possession of the evidence and lost it”). [21] With respect to its third-party spoliation claim, Safeco alleged in its amended complaint as follows: 13. | 1 | 1 |
Howard Regional Health System v. Gordon Ex Rel. Gordongreen1 sentence2011Howard Regional Health System v. Gordon, 925 N.E.2d 453, 460 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). [1] More problematic to the Gordons is their express inclusion of a third-party spoliation claim against the Hospital in their already-pending proposed complaint under the Medical Malpractice Act. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2024Ctr. v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles Cnty., 954 P.2d 511 , 519–20 (Cal. 1998)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006The Estate argues that IOSHA's instruction should produce the same result as in Bondu v. Gurvich, where the Florida District Court of Appeal held that a plaintiff could maintain a third-party spoliation claim against a hospital because a statute required all hospitals to maintain and make available to patients their medical records. 473 So.2d 18307 , 18312 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1984), overruled on other grounds by Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 908 So.2d 342 (Fla. 2005). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.