7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1926–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Indiana Department of Environmental Management v. Medical Disposal Services, Inc.green2 sentences2003In determining to not relieve MDSI from imposition of civil penalties, the court's holding was premised upon the conclusion that "[the legislature's subsequent legalization of MDSI's activities, however, did not relieve MDSI of the obligation it faced at the time." 729 N.E.2d at 581 (emphasis supplied). 2003In determining to not relieve MDSI from imposition of civil penalties, the court's holding was premised upon the conclusion that "[t]he legislature's subsequent legalization of MDSI's activities, however, did not relieve MDSI of the obligation it faced at the time." 729 N.E.2d at 581 (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dierckman v. Area Planning Commission of Franklin County, Indiana
green
1 sentence2019Id. [11] Here, the trial court issued the injunction after finding that Novak’s land- disturbing activities violated the permit requirement of Porter County Unified Development Ordinance Section 7.15. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Medical Disposal Services, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Environmental Management
green
1 sentence1998Id. at 1056 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Matter of PJ
green
1 sentence1991Therefore, because our first goal in construing a statute is to give effect to the intent of the legislature, Matter of P.J. (1991), Ind.App., 575 N.E.2d 22 , 27 (Baker, J., dissenting) (citing Spaulding v. International Bakers Services, Inc. (1990), Ind., 550 N.E.2d 307 ), we will look to SMCRA and the federal rules adopted under it as we analyze the Reclamation Act's exemption to the permit requirement. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
City of Chicago v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1991Since Salvage's facilities are not directly covered by the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, the only question that remains is whether the permit requirement, when applied to Salvage's operations, "is "inconsistent' with the policy of the Interstate Commerce Act to foster efficient interstate transportation." City of Chicago, supra, 357 U.S. at 83 , 78 S.Ct. at 1067 . 1991Since Salvage's facilities are not directly covered by the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, the only question that remains is whether the permit requirement, when applied to Salvage's operations, "is "inconsistent' with the policy of the Interstate Commerce Act to foster efficient interstate transportation." City of Chicago, supra, 357 U.S. at 83 , 78 S.Ct. at 1067 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Natural Resources Commission of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources v. Porter County Drainage Board
neutral
1 sentence1991Natural Resources Comm'n v. Porter County Drainage Bd. (1990), Ind. App., 555 N.E.2d 1387 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Spaulding v. International Bakers Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence1991Therefore, because our first goal in construing a statute is to give effect to the intent of the legislature, Matter of P.J. (1991), Ind.App., 575 N.E.2d 22 , 27 (Baker, J., dissenting) (citing Spaulding v. International Bakers Services, Inc. (1990), Ind., 550 N.E.2d 307 ), we will look to SMCRA and the federal rules adopted under it as we analyze the Reclamation Act's exemption to the permit requirement. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Northwest Door Co. v. Lewis Inv. Co.
green
2 sentences1926Co. (1919), 92 Ore. 186 , 180 Pac. 495 , the owner of property, without securing a permit and in violation of a city ordinance, started a fire on its premises. 1926Co. (1919), 92 Ore. 186 , 180 Pac. 495 , the owner of property, without securing a permit and in violation of a city ordinance, started a fire on its premises. | 1 | 1926–1926 |
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.