prerequisite waiver (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

prerequisite waiver in Indiana

7 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1900–2005 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Sierra Club, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agencygreen
ca7 · 2004 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005As the Seventh Circuit recently put it: "Because §§ 2308 and 2304(a) do not modify, or discuss in any way, a state's ability to establish a privity requirement, whether privity is a prerequisite to a claim for breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act therefore hinges entirely on the applicable state law." Voelker v. Porsche Cars N. Am., Inc., 358 F.3d 516, 525 (7th Cir. 2008).

11
Bob Nicholson Appliance, Inc. v. Maytag Co.green
insd · 1994 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998Bob Nicholson Appliance v. Maytag Co., 883 F.Supp. 321, 327 (S.D.Ind.1994) (applying Indiana law).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Russell v. State green
ind · 1978
1 sentence

1999Id.

11999–1999
Arndt v. State green
ind · 1994
2 sentences

1998I submit that that resolution is too facile to be blindly accepted. [11] Nevertheless, in Arndt v. State (1994) Ind., 642 N.E.2d 224, 227 , our Supreme Court held that "exceptions to the hearsay rule exist, because the manner in which certain out-of court statements are made virtually guarantee their reliability." In other words, reliability and trustworthiness are the prerequisite for an exception becoming firmly rooted.

1998I submit that that resolution is too facile to be blindly accepted. 11 Nevertheless, in Arndt v. State (1994) Ind., 642 N.E.2d 224, 227 , our Supreme Court held that “exceptions to the hearsay rule exist, because the manner in which certain out-of court statements are made virtually guarantee their reliability.” In other words, reliability and trustworthiness are the prerequisite for an exception becoming firmly rooted.

11998–1998
Breed v. Jones green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

1981Any other finding must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence.” He asks us to avail ourselves of the license afforded by Breed v. Jones, (1975) 421 U.S. 519 , 538 n. 18, 95 S.Ct. 1779 , 1790 n. 18, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 , 360 n. 18 to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offenses charged as a prerequisite to waiver.

1981Any other finding must be based upon a preponderance of the evidence.” He asks us to avail ourselves of the license afforded by Breed v. Jones, (1975) 421 U.S. 519 , 538 n. 18, 95 S.Ct. 1779 , 1790 n. 18, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 , 360 n. 18 to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the offenses charged as a prerequisite to waiver.

11981–1981
Red Men's Fraternal Accident Ass'n of America v. Rippey green
ind · 1913
2 sentences

1915Redmen, etc., Assn. v. Rippey (1914), 181 Ind. 454 , 103 N. E. 345 , 104 N. E. 641 , 50 L.

1915Redmen, etc., Assn. v. Rippey (1914), 181 Ind. 454 , 103 N. E. 345 , 104 N. E. 641 , 50 L.

11915–1915
People v. López green
prsupreme · 1916
1 sentence

1900In the case of Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226 , 24 Pac. 383 , the supreme court of that state upheld the constitutional validity of a statute requiring that all children attending the public schools should be vaccinated.

11900–1900
Abeel v. Clark green
· 1890
1 sentence

1900In the case of Abeel v. Clark, 84 Cal. 226 , 24 Pac. 383 , the supreme court of that state upheld the constitutional validity of a statute requiring that all children attending the public schools should be vaccinated.

11900–1900

Where else courts name it

TX 112 (1939–2026) CA 48 (1922–2024) WI 40 (1969–2026) NY 20 (1931–2021) PA 18 (1963–2023) IL 17 (1949–2025) NJ 14 (1968–2025) CO 12 (1963–2019) IA 12 (1962–2016) OR 12 (1960–2018) GA 12 (1930–2022) FL 11 (1978–2019) NC 11 (1942–2018) OH 10 (1980–2024) MA 10 (1984–2018) MD 9 (1959–2017) MS 9 (1988–2016) CT 8 (1991–2017) MO 8 (1971–2018) IN 7 (1900–2005) KS 7 (1891–2013) MN 6 (1973–2012) OK 6 (1939–2004) HI 6 (1979–2013) DC 6 (1990–2003) AL 5 (1979–2002) AZ 5 (1980–2021) WA 5 (1905–2020) MI 5 (1919–2019) VA 4 (1953–2024) VT 4 (1986–2013) WY 4 (1990–2006) LA 4 (1946–2015) TN 4 (1946–2016) SC 3 (1996–2026) AR 3 (1936–1988) NE 3 (1987–2016) NM 3 (1987–1994) MT 2 (1993–2014) VI 2 (2001–2016) NH 2 (1973–1984)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check