7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1948–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Gambillgreen1 sentence2019Upon confirmation, the court shall enter a judgment consistent with the award and cause such entry to be docketed as if rendered in an action in the court.” Section 34-57-2-15 provides in relevant part: “Upon the granting of an order confirming, modifying, or correcting an award, judgment or decree shall be entered in conformity therewith and be enforced as any other judgment or decree.” Section 34-57-2-16 provides in relevant part that “an application to the court under this chapter shall be by motion and shall be heard in the manner and upon the notice provided by law or rule of court for th | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Lewisgreen2 sentences1948The establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative not judicial in kind.’ ” (Italics added.) Again in State ex rel. v. Lewis (1918), 187 Ind. 564, 568, 569 , 120 N. E. 129 , this court clearly recognized the nature of such regulation in the following language: “The real question for decision involves an examination of certain sections of the act of 1913, supra (§ 10052a et seq. 1948The establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative not judicial in kind.’ ” (Italics added.) Again in State ex rel. v. Lewis (1918), 187 Ind. 564, 568, 569 , 120 N. E. 129 , this court clearly recognized the nature of such regulation in the following language: “The real question for decision involves an examination of certain sections of the act of 1913, supra (§ 10052a et seq. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Utterback v. State
green
2 sentences1977Conspicious by its absence, however, is any claim that he protested at his first opportunity as required by Buchanan v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 360 , 332 N.E.2d 213 . “* * * In two recent cases, Bryant v. State (1973), [261] Ind. [172], 301 N.E.2d 179 , and Utterback v. State (1974), [261] Ind. [685], 310 N.E.2d 552 , this Court established the principle that a defendant who knows that the court is making an error assigning a trial date beyond the date permitted by the rules may not be discharged by reason of such error. 1975In two recent cases, Bryant v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 172 , 301 N.E.2d 179 , and Utterback v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 685 , 310 N.E.2d 552 , this Court established the principle that a defendant who knows that the court is making an error in assigning a trial date beyond the date permitted by the rules may not be discharged by reason of such error. | 2 | 1975–1977 |
Bryant v. State
green
2 sentences1977Conspicious by its absence, however, is any claim that he protested at his first opportunity as required by Buchanan v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 360 , 332 N.E.2d 213 . “* * * In two recent cases, Bryant v. State (1973), [261] Ind. [172], 301 N.E.2d 179 , and Utterback v. State (1974), [261] Ind. [685], 310 N.E.2d 552 , this Court established the principle that a defendant who knows that the court is making an error assigning a trial date beyond the date permitted by the rules may not be discharged by reason of such error. 1975In two recent cases, Bryant v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 172 , 301 N.E.2d 179 , and Utterback v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 685 , 310 N.E.2d 552 , this Court established the principle that a defendant who knows that the court is making an error in assigning a trial date beyond the date permitted by the rules may not be discharged by reason of such error. | 2 | 1975–1977 |
Buchanan v. State
green
2 sentences1977Conspicious by its absence, however, is any claim that he protested at his first opportunity as required by Buchanan v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 360 , 332 N.E.2d 213 . “* * * In two recent cases, Bryant v. State (1973), [261] Ind. [172], 301 N.E.2d 179 , and Utterback v. State (1974), [261] Ind. [685], 310 N.E.2d 552 , this Court established the principle that a defendant who knows that the court is making an error assigning a trial date beyond the date permitted by the rules may not be discharged by reason of such error. 1977Conspicious by its absence, however, is any claim that he protested at his first opportunity as required by Buchanan v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 360 , 332 N.E.2d 213 . “* * * In two recent cases, Bryant v. State (1973), [261] Ind. [172], 301 N.E.2d 179 , and Utterback v. State (1974), [261] Ind. [685], 310 N.E.2d 552 , this Court established the principle that a defendant who knows that the court is making an error assigning a trial date beyond the date permitted by the rules may not be discharged by reason of such error. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Garfield v. United States Ex Rel. Allison
green
2 sentences1976The establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative, not judicial, in kind.....” Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., (1908), 211 U.S. 210, 226 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 , 158, 159 (quoted in dissenting opinion of J. 1976The establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative, not judicial, in kind... . ." Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., (1908), 211 U.S. 210, 226 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 , 158, 159 (quoted in dissenting opinion of J. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Robert R. Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Company
green
2 sentences1976The establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative, not judicial, in kind.....” Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., (1908), 211 U.S. 210, 226 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 , 158, 159 (quoted in dissenting opinion of J. 1976The establishment of a rate is the making of a rule for the future, and therefore is an act legislative, not judicial, in kind... . ." Prentis v. Atlantic Coast Line Co., (1908), 211 U.S. 210, 226 , 29 S.Ct. 67, 69 , 53 L.Ed. 150 , 158, 159 (quoted in dissenting opinion of J. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State Ex Rel. Pub. Serv. Com. v. Marion C. Ct.
neutral
2 sentences1976Emmert in State v. Marion Circuit Court (1952), 230 Ind. 277 , 103 N.E.2d 214 , 216). 3 ITC correctly observes that all contracts are made subject to the relevant statutory laws of the state. 1976Emmert in State v. Marion Circuit Court (1952), 230 Ind. 277 , 103 N.E.2d 214 , 216). [3] ITC correctly observes that all contracts are made subject to the relevant statutory laws of the state. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Barkey v. Stowell
green
2 sentences1962The evidence in the case at hand reveals an entirely different essential and determinative fact than that considered by the court in Barkey v. Stowell (1947), 117 Ind. App. 162, 166 , 70 N. E. 2d 430 , cited and relied upon by appellee. 1962The evidence in the case at hand reveals an entirely different essential and determinative fact than that considered by the court in Barkey v. Stowell (1947), 117 Ind. App. 162, 166 , 70 N. E. 2d 430 , cited and relied upon by appellee. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Carpenter v. Dame
green
2 sentences1956Carpenter v. Dame and Others (1858), 10 Ind. 125 : Heaston v. The Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad Company (1861), 16 Ind. 275 . 1956Carpenter v. Dame and Others (1858), 10 Ind. 125 : Heaston v. The Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad Company (1861), 16 Ind. 275 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Heaston v. Cincinnati & Fort Wayne Railroad
green
2 sentences1956Carpenter v. Dame and Others (1858), 10 Ind. 125 : Heaston v. The Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad Company (1861), 16 Ind. 275 . 1956Carpenter v. Dame and Others (1858), 10 Ind. 125 : Heaston v. The Cincinnati and Fort Wayne Railroad Company (1861), 16 Ind. 275 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.