copy hearing (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

copy hearing in Indiana

7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1912–2020 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Shouse v. Stategreen
indctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Under these circumstances, the error is not reversible. 849 N.E.2d 650, 658-59 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (emphasis in original), trans. denied. [16] Here, the trial court read and distributed the first phase’s preliminary and final instructions to the jury, which instructions contained the Section 19 instructions.

11
Koors v. Steffengreen
indctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016
1 sentence

2016But if the Kleinmans were concerned about the 1 Fifth Third Securities correctly notes that “Indiana recognizes a strong policy favoring the enforcement of arbitration agreements.” Koors v. Steffen, 916 N.E.2d 212, 215 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), reh’g denied.

11
Gould Motor Co. v. Vierragreen
indctapp · 1959 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001Gould Motor Co. v. Vierra, 129 Ind.App. 410, 419 , 157 N.E.2d 204, 208 (1959).

2001Gould Motor Co. v. Vierra, 129 Ind.App. 410, 419 , 157 N.E.2d 204, 208 (1959).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Trans-Spec Truck Service, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc. green
ca1 · 2008
1 sentence

2018Rather than respond to the Defendants' arguments challenging that analysis, we elect to start from scratch for clarity's sake. 8 Illinois' Section 2-725 is practically identical to Indiana's, so we refer to them interchangeably. 9 In Indiana, Article 2 of the UCC is codified in Indiana Code Chapter 26-1-2. 10 The Cosman court also stated that a repair or replacement provision "has nothing to do with the inherent quality of the goods" for purposes of Section 2-313 of the UCC, which is addressed more fully below. 220 Ill.Dec. 790 , 674 N.E.2d at 68 . 11 See also Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. C

12018–2018
Cosman v. Ford Motor Co. green
illappct · 1996
2 sentences

2018Rather than respond to the Defendants' arguments challenging that analysis, we elect to start from scratch for clarity's sake. 8 Illinois' Section 2-725 is practically identical to Indiana's, so we refer to them interchangeably. 9 In Indiana, Article 2 of the UCC is codified in Indiana Code Chapter 26-1-2. 10 The Cosman court also stated that a repair or replacement provision "has nothing to do with the inherent quality of the goods" for purposes of Section 2-313 of the UCC, which is addressed more fully below. 220 Ill.Dec. 790 , 674 N.E.2d at 68 . 11 See also Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. C

2018Rather than respond to the Defendants' arguments challenging that analysis, we elect to start from scratch for clarity's sake. 8 Illinois' Section 2-725 is practically identical to Indiana's, so we refer to them interchangeably. 9 In Indiana, Article 2 of the UCC is codified in Indiana Code Chapter 26-1-2. 10 The Cosman court also stated that a repair or replacement provision "has nothing to do with the inherent quality of the goods" for purposes of Section 2-313 of the UCC, which is addressed more fully below. 220 Ill.Dec. 790 , 674 N.E.2d at 68 . 11 See also Trans-Spec Truck Serv., Inc. v. C

12018–2018
Haskell v. Peterson Pontiac GMC Trucks green
indctapp · 1993
1 sentence

2012“An order denying a motion for 5 Lonaker’s counsel included a copy of the hearing transcript in the appellant’s appendix in violation of Indiana Appellate Rule 50(F), which says, “Because the Transcript is transmitted to the Court on Appeal pursuant to Rule 12(B), parties should not reproduce any portion of the Transcript in the Appendix.” 6 summary judgment is not a final judgment; all issues have not been disposed of and the matter is subject to an ultimate determination by the trier of fact.” Id.

12012–2012
Drake v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources green
indctapp · 1983
1 sentence

1997The State argues, pursuant to Drake v. Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, 453 N.E.2d 293 (Ind. Ct.App.1983), that Provisor's failure to file a transcript of the proceedings automatically deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review proceedings.

11997–1997
Brown v. State green
nj · 1899
1 sentence

1912L. 666, 42 Atl. 811, 827 .

11912–1912

Where else courts name it

NY 57 (1800–2026) GA 25 (1883–2020) CA 24 (1918–2025) FL 22 (1936–2026) PA 17 (1924–2026) IL 16 (1892–2022) TX 13 (1942–2025) OH 11 (1895–2026) NJ 9 (1950–2025) LA 8 (1911–2018) MI 8 (1919–2026) AL 7 (1870–2012) MO 7 (1894–1978) IN 7 (1912–2020) AR 6 (1924–2016) NM 5 (1952–2018) IA 5 (1891–2016) KY 5 (1909–1946) SC 4 (1918–1985) MD 4 (1984–2005) WA 4 (1942–2013) TN 4 (1950–2018) OK 3 (1930–1997) CO 3 (2011–2022) MN 3 (1990–2025) ID 3 (1950–2012) CT 3 (1966–1995) NE 3 (1907–2023) DC 3 (2003–2025) ME 2 (2015–2017) WI 2 (1939–2019) NC 2 (2021–2021) KS 2 (1978–2021) VA 2 (2020–2024) MA 2 (1995–2024)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check