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.
7 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 2005–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Switzerland County Assessor v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLCgreen1 sentence2020Assessor v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC, 101 N.E.3d 895, 905 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2018), review denied; Stinson v. Trimas Fasteners, Inc., 923 N.E.2d 496, 501 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (rejecting the Assessor’s claim that “while the [market] value-in-use of a vacant property is just the value of the ‘sticks and bricks,’ the [market] value-in-use of [an occupied] property should be ‘over and above’ that.”). | 1 | 1 |
Stinson v. Trimas Fasteners, Inc.green1 sentence2020Assessor v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC, 101 N.E.3d 895, 905 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2018), review denied; Stinson v. Trimas Fasteners, Inc., 923 N.E.2d 496, 501 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (rejecting the Assessor’s claim that “while the [market] value-in-use of a vacant property is just the value of the ‘sticks and bricks,’ the [market] value-in-use of [an occupied] property should be ‘over and above’ that.”). | 1 | 1 |
Kildsig v. Warrick County Assessorgreen1 sentence2016See 6787 Steelworkers Hall, Inc. v. Scott, 933 N.E.2d 591 , 595 n. 7 (Ind.Tax Ct.2010) (holding that evidence is substantial if it is more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance); see also Kildsig, 998 N.E.2d at 767 (stating that ,an Indiana Board’s final determination is supported by substantial evidence “ ‘if a reasonable person *932 could view the record in its entirety and find enough relevant evidence to support the ... determination’ ” (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Crystal Flash Petroleum, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenuegreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Crystal Flash Petroleum, LLC v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 45 N.E.3d 882 , 886 n. 7 (Ind. Tax Ct.2015) (indicating that the Court will not resolve an issue when its proponent fails to provide sufficient legal analysis); Scopelite v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct.2010) (explaining that when a litigant fails to provide any citations to evidence contained in the certified administrative record as factual support for his argument, the argument is waived as the Court does not bear the burden of searching the administrative record to make his case for | 1 | 1 |
Scopelite v. Indiana Department of Local Government Financegreen1 sentence2016See, e.g., Crystal Flash Petroleum, LLC v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 45 N.E.3d 882 , 886 n. 7 (Ind. Tax Ct.2015) (indicating that the Court will not resolve an issue when its proponent fails to provide sufficient legal analysis); Scopelite v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct.2010) (explaining that when a litigant fails to provide any citations to evidence contained in the certified administrative record as factual support for his argument, the argument is waived as the Court does not bear the burden of searching the administrative record to make his case for | 1 | 1 |
6787 Steelworkers Hall, Inc. v. Scottgreen1 sentence2016See 6787 Steelworkers Hall, Inc. v. Scott, 933 N.E.2d 591 , 595 n. 7 (Ind.Tax Ct.2010) (holding that evidence is substantial if it is more than a scintilla and less than a preponderance); see also Kildsig, 998 N.E.2d at 767 (stating that ,an Indiana Board’s final determination is supported by substantial evidence “ ‘if a reasonable person *932 could view the record in its entirety and find enough relevant evidence to support the ... determination’ ” (citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Scheid v. State Board of Tax Commissionersgreen1 sentence2013See, e.g., Scheid v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 560 N.E.2d 1283, 1284-86 (Ind. Tax Ct.1990); Ind.Code § 38-26-6-3(b) (2013) (limiting the Court’s review to the issues raised by the litigants during the Indiana Board proceedings or the issues discussed by the Indiana Board in its final determination). | 1 | 1 |
Indiana Model Co. v. State Board of Tax Commissionersgreen1 sentence2010See also Indiana Model Co., 639 N.E.2d at 698 n. 4 (explaining that it matters not who mails the doeu-ments, but rather that the documents are mailed within the prescribed time period). 5 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Assessor's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen1 sentence2006See State v. Moore, 796 N.E.2d 764, 766-67 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (stating that a motion to suppress was not subject to dismissal, despite the fact that the notice of completion of the clerk's record was not filed within the 30 day timeline, because litigants were not prejudiced), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
Foor v. Town of Hebrongreen1 sentence2005See Foor, 742 N.E.2d at 550 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.