instrument test (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

instrument test in Indiana

8 Indiana opinions name it 1 courts 1929–1990 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Surratt v. Petrol, Inc.green
indctapp · 1974 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1979–1982
2 sentences

1982Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and "(3) the entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test, arising from language in Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 ." Fort Wayne National Bank v. Doctor, supra, 149 Ind. App. at 374-75, 272 N.E.2d at 882 ; see also, Xaver, supra, 391 N.E.2d at 655 ; Surratt v. Petrol, Inc. (1974), 160 Ind. App. 498 , 499, 316 N.E.2d 453, 454 (on petition for rehearing from 160 Ind. App. 479 , 312 N.E.2d 487 ).

1982Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and “(3) the entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test, arising from language in Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .” Fort Wayne National Bank v. Doctor, supra, 149 Ind.App. at 374-75, 272 N.E.2d at 882 ; see also, Xaver, supra, 391 N.E.2d at 655 ; Surratt v. Petrol, Inc. (1974), 160 Ind. App. 498 , 499, 316 N.E.2d 453, 454 (on petition for rehearing from 160 Ind.App. 479 , 312 N.E.2d 487 ).

22
Fort Wayne National Bank v. Doctorgreen
indctapp · 1971 · cited in 3 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1979–1986
2 sentences

1986Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and (3)The entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test, from Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 , reh. denied. 272 N.E.2d 876, 882 .

1982Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and “(3) the entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test, arising from language in Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .” Fort Wayne National Bank v. Doctor, supra, 149 Ind.App. at 374-75, 272 N.E.2d at 882 ; see also, Xaver, supra, 391 N.E.2d at 655 ; Surratt v. Petrol, Inc. (1974), 160 Ind. App. 498 , 499, 316 N.E.2d 453, 454 (on petition for rehearing from 160 Ind.App. 479 , 312 N.E.2d 487 ).

13
Surratt v. Petrol, Inc.green
indctapp · 1974 · cited in 2 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1979–1982
2 sentences

1982Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and “(3) the entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test, arising from language in Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .” Fort Wayne National Bank v. Doctor, supra, 149 Ind.App. at 374-75, 272 N.E.2d at 882 ; see also, Xaver, supra, 391 N.E.2d at 655 ; Surratt v. Petrol, Inc. (1974), 160 Ind. App. 498 , 499, 316 N.E.2d 453, 454 (on petition for rehearing from 160 Ind.App. 479 , 312 N.E.2d 487 ).

1982Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and “(3) the entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test, arising from language in Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .” Fort Wayne National Bank v. Doctor, supra, 149 Ind.App. at 374-75, 272 N.E.2d at 882 ; see also, Xaver, supra, 391 N.E.2d at 655 ; Surratt v. Petrol, Inc. (1974), 160 Ind. App. 498 , 499, 316 N.E.2d 453, 454 (on petition for rehearing from 160 Ind.App. 479 , 312 N.E.2d 487 ).

12
Lowden Ex Rel. Lowden v. Lowdengreen
indctapp · 1986 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
1 sentence

1986See also Lowden by Lowden v. Lowden (1986), Ind. App., 490 N.E.2d 1143, 1144 .

11
Xaver v. Blazakgreen
indctapp · 1979 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and “(3) the entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test, arising from language in Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .” Fort Wayne National Bank v. Doctor, supra, 149 Ind.App. at 374-75, 272 N.E.2d at 882 ; see also, Xaver, supra, 391 N.E.2d at 655 ; Surratt v. Petrol, Inc. (1974), 160 Ind. App. 498 , 499, 316 N.E.2d 453, 454 (on petition for rehearing from 160 Ind.App. 479 , 312 N.E.2d 487 ).

1982Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and “(3) the entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test, arising from language in Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .” Fort Wayne National Bank v. Doctor, supra, 149 Ind.App. at 374-75, 272 N.E.2d at 882 ; see also, Xaver, supra, 391 N.E.2d at 655 ; Surratt v. Petrol, Inc. (1974), 160 Ind. App. 498 , 499, 316 N.E.2d 453, 454 (on petition for rehearing from 160 Ind.App. 479 , 312 N.E.2d 487 ).

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 (4)

CaseCitedYears
Lingenfelter v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. neutral
ind · 1900
2 sentences

1990Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and (3) The entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test —Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .

1990Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and (3) The entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test —Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .

71974–1990
Pier v. SCHULTZ green
ind · 1962
2 sentences

1990Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and (3) The entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test —Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .

1990Co. (1900), 154 Ind. 49 , 55 N.E. 1021 ; and (3) The entrapment-affirmative control of the instrument test —Pier v. Schultz (1962), 243 Ind. 200 , 182 N.E.2d 255 .

71974–1990
Swanson v. Shroat green
indctapp · 1976
2 sentences

1982These three tests arose from the recognition that the basic presumption that a licensee will perceive and avoid an existing dangerous condition fails when a licensee “is either unable to recognize or unable to avoid danger.” Swanson, supra, 169 Ind.App. at 88 , 345 N.E.2d at 877 .

1982These three tests arose from the recognition that the basic presumption that a licensee will perceive and avoid an existing dangerous condition fails when a licensee “is either unable to recognize or unable to avoid danger.” Swanson, supra, 169 Ind.App. at 88 , 345 N.E.2d at 877 .

11982–1982
Rice v. Rice neutral
kan · 1917
2 sentences

1929In Rice v. Rice (1917), 101 Kans. 20 , 165 Pac. 799 , it was held that though the terms of an obligation assumed to be valid cannot be varied by parol, it may be shown by parol what caused the party thus to obligate himself, and thereby test the question as to whether he is legally bound, as the writing imports, or whether he is by any cause partially freed from liability thereon.

1929In Rice v. Rice (1917), 101 Kans. 20 , 165 Pac. 799 , it was held that though the terms of an obligation assumed to be valid cannot be varied by parol, it may be shown by parol what caused the party thus to obligate himself, and thereby test the question as to whether he is legally bound, as the writing imports, or whether he is by any cause partially freed from liability thereon.

11929–1929

Where else courts name it

NY 27 (1849–2026) IL 11 (1898–2011) PA 9 (1893–1976) IN 8 (1929–1990) TX 7 (1900–2015) OH 6 (1906–2026) CA 6 (1919–2001) MO 5 (1914–2010) GA 4 (1926–1970) MN 4 (1930–1989) OR 4 (1969–2013) NC 4 (1905–1942) AR 3 (1882–1951) AL 3 (1900–1988) WA 3 (1957–2001) KY 3 (1913–1975) NM 3 (1924–2024) IA 2 (1903–1994) CO 2 (1960–1960) WV 2 (1960–1960) MI 2 (1896–1986) MA 2 (1921–1967) AZ 2 (1930–2009) WI 2 (1917–1966)

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