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 2 courts 1977–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cissna v. Stategreen2 sentences1987In Cissna v. State (1976), 170 Ind.App. 437 , 352 N.E.2d 793 , trans. denied, the court refused to create a parent-child privilege. 1987In Cissna v. State (1976), 170 Ind.App. 437 , 352 N.E.2d 793 , trans. denied, the court refused to create a parent-child privilege. | 1 | 2 |
Witte v. Mundy Ex Rel. Mundygreen1 sentence2026Mundy, 820 N.E.2d 128, 133 (Ind. 2005) (holding that trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion to name plaintiff child’s mother as a nonparty defendant because, even though the doctrine of parent-child immunity barred mother from being held liable to the child for causing or contributing to the child’s injuries, defendant’s share of fault, if any, for the child’s injuries could still be reduced due to mother’s negligence). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Buffalo v. Buffalo
green
2 sentences2003The child appealed, arguing that "the doctrine of parent-child immunity does not preclude a suit for negligent injury by an unemancipated minor child against a non-custodial parent where the marriage of the child's parents was dissolved prior to the child's injury." Id. at 712 . 1990As noted in By/ falo the original purpose of the parent-child immunity doctrine was to promote family harmony and where "[the domestic peace and tranquility of the family has already been broken" by divorce "[njlo logical reason grounded in public policy or common sense can be advanced for continued imposition of the immunity rule in favor of a noncustodial parent." Buffalo, 441 N.E.2d 711, 714 . | 2 | 1990–2003 |
Brunner v. Hutchinson Division, Lear-Siegler, Inc.
green
1 sentence1992The Restatement (Second) of Torts (1977) rejects the immunity in § 895(G) but recognizes a privilege of parental application of reasonable force or confinement for control, training, and education in § 147(1). 2 A recent overview discussing the approaches taken in cases reexamining parent-child tort immunity is provided in Brunner v. Hutchinson Div. Lear-Siegler, Inc. (D.S.D.1991), 770 F.Supp. 517 , 521: To date, a substantial majority of jurisdictions have abrogated the doctrine either partially or completely. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Sidle v. Majors
green
2 sentences1990As stated in Sidle, "[these doctrines of immunity were judicially created and therefore were subject to judicial repeal [or modification] when, in our opinion, they were determined to be no longer compatible in our society." Sidle, 264 Ind. at 216 , 341 N.E.2d at 770 . 1990As stated in Sidle, "[these doctrines of immunity were judicially created and therefore were subject to judicial repeal [or modification] when, in our opinion, they were determined to be no longer compatible in our society." Sidle, 264 Ind. at 216 , 341 N.E.2d at 770 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Vaughan v. Vaughan
green
2 sentences1977Vaughan v. Vaughan (1974), 161 Ind. App. 497 , 316 N.E.2d 455 . 1977Vaughan v. Vaughan (1974), 161 Ind. App. 497 , 316 N.E.2d 455 . | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.