61 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Levygreen2 sentences2025When neither party challenges the findings of the hearing officer, “we accept and adopt those findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction.” Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000). 2020When neither party challenges the findings of the hearing officer, “we accept and adopt those findings but reserve final judgment as to misconduct and sanction.” Matter of Levy, 726 N.E.2d 1257, 1258 (Ind. 2000). | 37 | 46 |
ESPN, Inc. and Paula Lavigne v. University of Notre Dame Police Departmentgreen1 sentence2018We cannot agree. [14] When we interpret a statute, “we are mindful of both what it does say and what it does not say.” ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Police Dep’t, 62 N.E.3d 1192, 1195-96 (Ind. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Vancegreen1 sentence2012Violations: This Court has not attempted to provide a comprehensive definition of what constitutes the practice of law, see Miller v. Vance, 463 N.E.2d 250, 251 (Ind. 1984), but it is clear the core element of practicing law is the giving of legal advice to a client. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Whitegreen1 sentence2005In one case, State v. White, 474 N.E.2d 995, 1000 (Ind.1985), our supreme court reviewed a trial court’s grant of a new trial under Trial Rule 59 without making the findings the rule requires, stating, “if the court overrides the jury in its special domain and substitutes its verdict for theirs without a clear showing [by making specific findings] that the ends of justice required it, it is likely that they did not.” Our supreme court therefore used the trial court’s failure to make findings as the reason to reverse the trial court’s grant of new trial and affirm the jury’s verdict. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Matter of Newman
neutral
2 sentences1998In re Newman , 659 N.E.2d 1044 (Ind. 1996). 1997In re Newman, 659 N.E.2d 1044 (Ind.1996). | 2 | 1997–1998 |
In Matter of Stover-Pock
green
2 sentences1997In re Stover-Pock, 604 N.E.2d 606 (Ind.1992). 1993In re Shaul (1993), Ind., 610 N.E.2d 253 ; In re Stover-Pock (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 606 . | 2 | 1993–1997 |
Richardson v. State
green
1 sentence2017The analysis of double jeopardy claims under the Indiana Constitution is governed by Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999), in which our supreme court described two tests, the statutory elements test and the actual evidence test. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In re the Contempt of the Supreme Court of Indiana of McLaren
green
1 sentence2012Violations: “Attorneys that resign from the Bar are required to comply with the provisions of Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23, § 26, including the requirement that they not maintain a presence or occupy an office where the practice of law is conducted.” Matter of McLaren, 850 N.E.2d 400 (Ind.2006). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
In the Matter of Goebel
neutral
1 sentence2001Matter of Goebel, 703 N.E.2d 1045 (Ind.1998). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Matter of Gallo
neutral
1 sentence2000Matter of Gallo, 619 N.E.2d 921 (Ind.1993). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
K-Mart Corp. v. Morrison
green
2 sentences1999In K-Mart, we succinctly stated that our insistence on compliance with the specific findings requirement “is not predicated on esoteric legal technicalities or the rote imposition of statutory provisions.” K-Mart, 609 N.E.2d at 31-32 . 1999Rather, we said that “specific findings of fact are essential to an effective system of administrative law.” Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Matter of Gemmer
green
1 sentence1998In re Gemmer, 566 N.E.2d 528 (Ind.1991). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Matter of Vogler
green
1 sentence1993In re Vogler (1992), Ind., 587 N.E.2d 678 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Matter of Shaul
neutral
1 sentence1993In re Shaul (1993), Ind., 610 N.E.2d 253 ; In re Stover-Pock (1992), Ind., 604 N.E.2d 606 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Dotlich v. Dotlich
green
2 sentences1991Id. 1991Id. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
City of Indianapolis v. Nickel
green
1 sentence1984This was error; the court was not to determine if in its judgment the finding was reasonable, but rather it was to determine if the findings of fact were capricious, arbitrary, an abuse of discretion, in excess of statutory authority or unsupported by substantial evidence. ‘In making its decision, the court was entitled to hear and weigh the evidence against a standard of administrative discretion validly employed, but it could not simply substitute its judgment for that of the administrative body’.” Nickel, supra, 331 N.E.2d at 769 . | 1 | 1984–1984 |
In Re Evrard
green
2 sentences1975For the reasons stated in In Re Evrard (1974), Ind., 317 N.E.2d 841 , this matter is properly before this Court. 1975For the reasons stated in In Re Evrard (1974), Ind., 317 N.E.2d 841 , this matter is properly before this Court. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.