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 2000–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Galbraith v. Planning Department of Andersongreen2 sentences2013Ass’n v. Ammerman, 724 N.E.2d 251 , 255 n.7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“Although the trial court specifically granted Holman’s motion to dismiss and did not rule on his motion for summary judgment, we must nevertheless treat the former as a motion for summary judgment on review.”); Galbraith v. Planning Dep’t of City of Anderson, 627 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (treating the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint as a summary judgment for the defendant when plaintiff submitted an affidavit and the trial court acknowledged that it considered matters outside the pleadings)). 2013Ass’n v. Ammerman, 724 N.E.2d 251 , 255 n. 7 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (“Although the trial court specifically granted Holman’s motion to dismiss and did not rule on his motion for summary judgment, we must nevertheless treat the former as a motion for summary judgment on review.”); Galbraith v. Planning Dep’t of City of Anderson, 627 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (treating the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint as a summary judgment for the defendant when plaintiff submitted an affidavit and trial court acknowledged that it considered matters outside the pleadings); Valley Fed. | 5 | 5 |
New Albany-Floyd County Education Ass'n v. Ammermangreen2 sentences2013Ass’n v. Ammerman, 724 N.E.2d 251 , 255 n.7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“Although the trial court specifically granted Holman’s motion to dismiss and did not rule on his motion for summary judgment, we must nevertheless treat the former as a motion for summary judgment on review.”); Galbraith v. Planning Dep’t of City of Anderson, 627 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (treating the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint as a summary judgment for the defendant when plaintiff submitted an affidavit and the trial court acknowledged that it considered matters outside the pleadings)). 2013Ass’n v. Ammerman, 724 N.E.2d 251 , 255 n. 7 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (“Although the trial court specifically granted Holman’s motion to dismiss and did not rule on his motion for summary judgment, we must nevertheless treat the former as a motion for summary judgment on review.”); Galbraith v. Planning Dep’t of City of Anderson, 627 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (treating the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiffs complaint as a summary judgment for the defendant when plaintiff submitted an affidavit and trial court acknowledged that it considered matters outside the pleadings); Valley Fed. | 2 | 5 |
Bauer v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment); Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that the defendant’s claims required consideration of matters in the record outside the face of the judgment and accordingly they are not the types of claims that are properly presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. denie | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Jackson v. State, 806 N.E.2d 773, 774 (Ind. 2004) (holding that the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to correct erroneous sentence and noting that a motion to correct erroneous sentence is available only to correct sentencing errors clear from the face of the judgment); Bauer v. State, 875 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (noting that the defendant’s claims required consideration of matters in the record outside the face of the judgment and accordingly they are not the types of claims that are properly presented in a motion to correct erroneous sentence), trans. denie | 1 | 1 |
Valley Federal Savings Bank v. Andersongreen1 sentence2009Bank v. Anderson, 612 N.E.2d 1099, 1101 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) ("When matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment."). | 1 | 1 |
Garza v. Lorchgreen1 sentence2000See Garza v. Lorch, 705 N.E.2d 468, 473 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998) (summary judgment appellant quoted incorrect section of code, failed to provide independent statutory analysis, and failed to refer to designated evidence to support declaratory action claim; issue waived on appeal). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Train Collision at Gary, Indianagreen1 sentence2000See In re Train Collision at Gary, Ind. on Jan. 18, 1993, 670 N.E.2d 902 , 909 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied, Dillon v. Chicago Southshore, *256 683 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. 1997), cert. denied, Dillon v. Northern Indiana Transp. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Albro v. Indianapolis Education Ass'n
green
1 sentence2000In Albro , we reiterated the U.S. Supreme Court's three guidelines "for determining on a case-by-case basis what expenses a union may charge nonunion members without impinging upon the nonunion members' first amendment rights”: (1) "union expenses must be for activities that are 'germane' to collective bargaining”; (2) “the expenses must be for activities that are justified by the government's vital policy interest in labor peace and avoiding 'free riders’ ”; and (3) "the expenses must be for activities that do not significantly add to the burdening of free speech that is inherent in allowing | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Assn.
green
2 sentences2000In Albro , we reiterated the U.S. Supreme Court's three guidelines "for determining on a case-by-case basis what expenses a union may charge nonunion members without impinging upon the nonunion members' first amendment rights”: (1) "union expenses must be for activities that are 'germane' to collective bargaining”; (2) “the expenses must be for activities that are justified by the government's vital policy interest in labor peace and avoiding 'free riders’ ”; and (3) "the expenses must be for activities that do not significantly add to the burdening of free speech that is inherent in allowing 2000In Albro , we reiterated the U.S. Supreme Court's three guidelines "for determining on a case-by-case basis what expenses a union may charge nonunion members without impinging upon the nonunion members' first amendment rights”: (1) "union expenses must be for activities that are 'germane' to collective bargaining”; (2) “the expenses must be for activities that are justified by the government's vital policy interest in labor peace and avoiding 'free riders’ ”; and (3) "the expenses must be for activities that do not significantly add to the burdening of free speech that is inherent in allowing | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.