determinative factors (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

determinative factors in Indiana

7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2010 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 (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana.

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 (8)

CaseCitedYears
Summers v. State green
ind · 1967
2 sentences

1979We do not necessarily limit the determinative factors to those stated above but we suggest them only as guidelines, any one of which might be determinative of the propriety for waiver in a given case.” [Citations omitted.] Summers v. State, supra, 248 Ind. 551 , 230 N.E.2d 320, 325-26 .

1979We do not necessarily limit the determinative factors to those stated above but we suggest them only as guidelines, any one of which might be determinative of the propriety for waiver in a given case.” [Citations omitted.] Summers v. State, supra, 248 Ind. 551 , 230 N.E.2d 320, 325-26 .

21976–1979
Smith v. Tisdal green
indctapp · 1985
1 sentence

2010Id.

12010–2010
Ember v. B.F.D., Inc. green
indctapp · 1986
2 sentences

1994Our courts have identified the determinative inquiry in such cases: "If one has engaged in affirmative conduct evidence-ing an undertaking to provide a [service], the failure to [provide the service}, otherwise an 'omission,' will nonetheless support Hability for the breach of a gratuitously assumed duty." Ember, supra, 490 N.E.2d at 771 .

1994Our courts have identified the determinative inquiry in such cases: "If one has engaged in affirmative conduct evidence-ing an undertaking to provide a [service], the failure to [provide the service}, otherwise an 'omission,' will nonetheless support Hability for the breach of a gratuitously assumed duty." Ember, supra, 490 N.E.2d at 771 .

11994–1994
Hansen v. Von Duprin, Inc. green
ind · 1987
1 sentence

1989The issue ... is simply whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. # * * %* # # The nature of the injury, including an aggravation or triggering of a pre-exist-ing injury, must be such that injury or aggravation is shown to 'arise out of and in the course of employment,' that is, to be causally connected with the employment." Hansen v. Von Duprin, Inc. (1987), Ind., 507 N.E.2d 573, 576 .

11989–1989
McFarland v. State green
ind · 1975
2 sentences

1978McFarland v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 657 , 336 N.E.2d 824 .

1978McFarland v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 657 , 336 N.E.2d 824 .

11978–1978
State v. Jump green
indctapp · 1974
2 sentences

1976See also: State v. Jump (1974), 160 Ind. App. 1 , 309 N.E.2d 148 .

1976See also: State v. Jump (1974), 160 Ind. App. 1 , 309 N.E.2d 148 .

11976–1976
Kent v. United States green
scotus · 1966
2 sentences

1975Kent v. United States, supra.” (Our emphasis.) Five years later, in Atkins et al. v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 596 , 290 N.E.2d 441 , our Supreme Court clarified the standards established in Summers .

1975Kent v. United States, supra . " (Our emphasis.) Five years later, in Atkins et al. v. State (1972), Ind., 290 N.E.2d 441 , our Supreme Court clarified the standards established in Summers .

11975–1975
Atkins v. State green
ind · 1972
2 sentences

1975Kent v. United States, supra.” (Our emphasis.) Five years later, in Atkins et al. v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 596 , 290 N.E.2d 441 , our Supreme Court clarified the standards established in Summers .

1975Kent v. United States, supra.” (Our emphasis.) Five years later, in Atkins et al. v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 596 , 290 N.E.2d 441 , our Supreme Court clarified the standards established in Summers .

11975–1975

Where else courts name it

NC 138 (1926–2026) CA 45 (1927–2026) IL 36 (1951–2025) NY 35 (1932–2015) PA 30 (1975–2026) NJ 26 (1941–2022) TN 25 (1949–2018) CT 24 (1920–2025) MI 23 (1967–2023) OH 19 (1937–2016) WA 18 (1913–2021) MO 17 (1943–2016) TX 17 (1917–2023) GA 14 (1978–2025) AL 13 (1979–2012) LA 13 (1969–2021) MA 8 (1965–2025) OR 8 (1975–2017) IN 7 (1975–2010) ID 6 (1950–2010) KS 6 (1975–1983) AK 6 (1979–2020) FL 6 (1980–2018) HI 5 (1978–2018) DC 5 (1990–2023) MT 5 (1917–2011) AZ 4 (1973–2012) VA 4 (1984–2001) WV 4 (1932–2021) MN 4 (1938–2009) MD 4 (1971–1996) UT 4 (1990–2014) CO 4 (1985–2002) NE 3 (1947–1989) NM 3 (1996–2020) OK 3 (1965–1988) WI 3 (1973–2002) RI 2 (2004–2008) VT 2 (1991–2009) SD 2 (1995–2006) ND 2 (1982–1996) ME 2 (1980–2025) KY 2 (1944–2012)

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