7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1867–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Correll v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Correll v. State, 639 N.E.2d 677, 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). | 1 | 1 |
Nipsco Indus. Grp. v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co.green1 sentence2019But Appellants do not specifically assert, let alone conclusively establish, that this administrative and judicial precedent somehow precludes the legislature from applying the standard to a distressed utility 11 The court took a contrary position less than six months earlier in NIPSCO Industrial Group v. Northern Indiana Public Service Co., 100 N.E.3d 234, 241 (Ind. 2018) (“We review questions of law de novo … and accord the administrative tribunal below no deference.”), but we are bound by its latest pronouncement on the subject. | 1 | 1 |
Meredith v. Stategreen1 sentence2016Where there is an ambiguity, the rule of lenity “requires that penal statutes be construed strictly against the State and any ambiguities resolved in favor of the accused.” Meredith v. State, 906 N.E.2d 867, 872 (Ind. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sanchez v. State
green
2 sentences2013First, the intention of the legislature was not to bar intoxication as reprehensible, but only to penalize the conduct that “produces greater harm than it typically does.” See Sanchez, 749 N.E.2d at 518 . 2013First, the intention of the legislature was not to bar intoxication as reprehensible, but only to penalize the conduct that “produces greater harm than it typically does.” See Sanchez, 749 N.E.2d at 518 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Huber
green
2 sentences2008Further, we noted that “the legislature has required a warning phrased in absolute terms,” id. at 142 , and held that the statute mandated an advisement stating “that refusal will result in suspension” of the person’s driving privileges. 2008Id. (emphasis in original). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Guzman v. MRM/ELGIN WILLCOX & GIBBS, INC.
green
2 sentences2000(Citing Guzman v. MRM/Elgin, 409 Mass. 563 , 567 N.E.2d 929 (1991), Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.1984), Fish v. Amsted Industries Inc., 126 Wis.2d 293 , 376 N.W.2d 820 , Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc., 565 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.1977), and Bernard v. Kee, 409 So.2d 1047 .) In determining whether to adopt the product line exception in this case, this Court looks to the factors we *484 consider when applying the “traditional” exceptions to successor non-liability and those reasons driving the application of the product line exception in other jurisdictions. 2000(Citing Guzman v. MRM/Elgin, 409 Mass. 563 , 567 N.E.2d 929 (1991), Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.1984), Fish v. Amsted Industries Inc., 126 Wis.2d 293 , 376 N.W.2d 820 , Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc., 565 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.1977), and Bernard v. Kee, 409 So.2d 1047 .) In determining whether to adopt the product line exception in this case, this Court looks to the factors we *484 consider when applying the “traditional” exceptions to successor non-liability and those reasons driving the application of the product line exception in other jurisdictions. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bernard v. Kee Mfg. Co., Inc.
green
1 sentence2000(Citing Guzman v. MRM/Elgin, 409 Mass. 563 , 567 N.E.2d 929 (1991), Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.1984), Fish v. Amsted Industries Inc., 126 Wis.2d 293 , 376 N.W.2d 820 , Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc., 565 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.1977), and Bernard v. Kee, 409 So.2d 1047 .) In determining whether to adopt the product line exception in this case, this Court looks to the factors we *484 consider when applying the “traditional” exceptions to successor non-liability and those reasons driving the application of the product line exception in other jurisdictions. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Fish v. Amsted Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000(Citing Guzman v. MRM/Elgin, 409 Mass. 563 , 567 N.E.2d 929 (1991), Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.1984), Fish v. Amsted Industries Inc., 126 Wis.2d 293 , 376 N.W.2d 820 , Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc., 565 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.1977), and Bernard v. Kee, 409 So.2d 1047 .) In determining whether to adopt the product line exception in this case, this Court looks to the factors we *484 consider when applying the “traditional” exceptions to successor non-liability and those reasons driving the application of the product line exception in other jurisdictions. 2000(Citing Guzman v. MRM/Elgin, 409 Mass. 563 , 567 N.E.2d 929 (1991), Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.1984), Fish v. Amsted Industries Inc., 126 Wis.2d 293 , 376 N.W.2d 820 , Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc., 565 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.1977), and Bernard v. Kee, 409 So.2d 1047 .) In determining whether to adopt the product line exception in this case, this Court looks to the factors we *484 consider when applying the “traditional” exceptions to successor non-liability and those reasons driving the application of the product line exception in other jurisdictions. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000(Citing Guzman v. MRM/Elgin, 409 Mass. 563 , 567 N.E.2d 929 (1991), Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.1984), Fish v. Amsted Industries Inc., 126 Wis.2d 293 , 376 N.W.2d 820 , Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc., 565 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.1977), and Bernard v. Kee, 409 So.2d 1047 .) In determining whether to adopt the product line exception in this case, this Court looks to the factors we *484 consider when applying the “traditional” exceptions to successor non-liability and those reasons driving the application of the product line exception in other jurisdictions. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Raymond Leannais and Catherine Leannais v. Cincinnati, Incorporated and Cincinnati-Forte Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
green
1 sentence2000(Citing Guzman v. MRM/Elgin, 409 Mass. 563 , 567 N.E.2d 929 (1991), Downtowner, Inc. v. Acrometal Products, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 118 (N.D.1984), Fish v. Amsted Industries Inc., 126 Wis.2d 293 , 376 N.W.2d 820 , Leannais v. Cincinnati, Inc., 565 F.2d 437 (7th Cir.1977), and Bernard v. Kee, 409 So.2d 1047 .) In determining whether to adopt the product line exception in this case, this Court looks to the factors we *484 consider when applying the “traditional” exceptions to successor non-liability and those reasons driving the application of the product line exception in other jurisdictions. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Anthony v. City of Kewanee
neutral
1 sentence1979Anthony v. City of Kewanee, supra, 223 N.E.2d at 740 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Cox v. State
green
1 sentence1867It was held in Cox v. The State, 3 Blackf. 193 , that such an act of the legislature was no defense to such a prosecution. | 1 | 1867–1867 |
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.