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 1992–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc.green2 sentences2008Indiana Code section 32-31-3-15 indicates that “[f]ailure by a landlord to provide notice of damages under section 14 of this chapter constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit.” See also Durf v. Molter, 839 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (“The failure to comply with the notice of damages requirement constitutes an agreement by the landlord that no damages are due.”) (quoting Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 937, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)). 2008Indiana Code section 32-31-3-15 indicates that "[f]ailure by a landlord to provide notice of damages under section 14 of this chapter constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit." See also Durf v. Molter, 839 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) ("The failure to comply with the notice of damages requirement constitutes an agreement by the landlord that no damages are due.") (quoting Milensnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 937, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)). | 2 | 2 |
Chasteen v. Smithgreen2 sentences1994See Chasteen v. Smith (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 501 (by operation of statute, the failure of a landlord to comply with the notice of damages requirement constitutes an agreement by the landlord that no damages are due). 1994Chasteen v. Smith (1993), Ind.App., 625 N.E.2d 501, 502 . | 1 | 2 |
Figg v. Bryan Rental Inc.green1 sentence2012Figg v. Bryan Rental Inc., 646 N.E.2d 69, 72 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995), reh’g denied, trans. denied. 5 Zanovello argues he terminated his occupancy by May 6,5 when he provided Deer Park with a forwarding address. | 1 | 1 |
Durf v. Moltergreen2 sentences2008Indiana Code section 32-31-3-15 indicates that “[f]ailure by a landlord to provide notice of damages under section 14 of this chapter constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit.” See also Durf v. Molter, 839 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (“The failure to comply with the notice of damages requirement constitutes an agreement by the landlord that no damages are due.”) (quoting Mileusnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 937, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)). 2008Indiana Code section 32-31-3-15 indicates that "[f]ailure by a landlord to provide notice of damages under section 14 of this chapter constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit." See also Durf v. Molter, 839 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) ("The failure to comply with the notice of damages requirement constitutes an agreement by the landlord that no damages are due.") (quoting Milensnich v. Novogroder Co., Inc., 643 N.E.2d 937, 941 (Ind.Ct.App.1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Pinnacle Properties v. Saulkagreen1 sentence2000However, where the landlord fails to comply with the statutory notice requirement this “constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit.” I.C. § 32-7-5-15; Pinnacle Props. v. Saulka, 693 N.E.2d 101, 103-04 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. *303 We further note that “the Security Deposit statute applies only to security deposits” and that the statute “clearly and unambiguously preserves the right of the landlord ... to recover other damages to which [he or she] is entitled.” I.C. § 32-7-5-12(c) 5 ; Mi | 1 | 1 |
Miller v. Geelsgreen1 sentence2000However, where the landlord fails to comply with the statutory notice requirement this “constitutes agreement by the landlord that no damages are due, and the landlord must remit to the tenant immediately the full security deposit.” I.C. § 32-7-5-15; Pinnacle Props. v. Saulka, 693 N.E.2d 101, 103-04 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied. *303 We further note that “the Security Deposit statute applies only to security deposits” and that the statute “clearly and unambiguously preserves the right of the landlord ... to recover other damages to which [he or she] is entitled.” I.C. § 32-7-5-12(c) 5 ; Mi | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Flying Squadron Foundation v. Crippen
green
2 sentences1992Contrary to the Landlords' argument, the legal effect of written documents is a question of law for trial courts to decide, whether they be ambiguous or unambiguous. - Flying Squadron Foundation v. Crippen (1930), 201 Ind. 482 , 169 N.E. 843 ; Ford v. Cleveland (1942), 112 Ind.App. 420 , 44 N.E.2d 244 . 1992Contrary to the Landlords' argument, the legal effect of written documents is a question of law for trial courts to decide, whether they be ambiguous or unambiguous. - Flying Squadron Foundation v. Crippen (1930), 201 Ind. 482 , 169 N.E. 843 ; Ford v. Cleveland (1942), 112 Ind.App. 420 , 44 N.E.2d 244 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ford v. Cleveland
neutral
2 sentences1992Contrary to the Landlords' argument, the legal effect of written documents is a question of law for trial courts to decide, whether they be ambiguous or unambiguous. - Flying Squadron Foundation v. Crippen (1930), 201 Ind. 482 , 169 N.E. 843 ; Ford v. Cleveland (1942), 112 Ind.App. 420 , 44 N.E.2d 244 . 1992Contrary to the Landlords' argument, the legal effect of written documents is a question of law for trial courts to decide, whether they be ambiguous or unambiguous. - Flying Squadron Foundation v. Crippen (1930), 201 Ind. 482 , 169 N.E. 843 ; Ford v. Cleveland (1942), 112 Ind.App. 420 , 44 N.E.2d 244 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.