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 1995–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'ngreen2 sentences2015Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass’n (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 276, 279 (quoting Hodnick v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1932), 96 Ind. App. 342, 350 , 183 N.E. 488, 491 ); see also Ind. Const. art. 1995Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass'n (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 276, 279 (quoting Hodnick v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1932), 96 Ind.App. 342, 350 , 183 N.E. 488, 491 ); see also Ind. Const. art. | 2 | 2 |
Fresh Cut, Inc. v. Fazligreen2 sentences2008This reflects the principle that it is in the best interest of the public not to restrict unnecessarily persons’ freedom of contract.” Fresh Cut v. Fazli, 650 N.E.2d 1126, 1129 (Ind.1995). 1997Id. | 1 | 3 |
Harris v. Primusgreen1 sentence2001This reflects the principle that it is in the best interest of the public not to unnecessarily restrict peoples' freedom to contract.’ ” Eck & Associates, Inc. v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 700 N.E.2d 1163, 1167 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (citations omitted) trans. denied; See also Harris v. Primus, 450 N.E.2d 80 (Ind.Ct.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Eck & Associates, Inc. v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc.green1 sentence2001This reflects the principle that it is in the best interest of the public not to unnecessarily restrict peoples' freedom to contract.’ ” Eck & Associates, Inc. v. Alusuisse Flexible Packaging, Inc., 700 N.E.2d 1163, 1167 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (citations omitted) trans. denied; See also Harris v. Primus, 450 N.E.2d 80 (Ind.Ct.App.1983). | 1 | 1 |
Castillo-Cullather v. Pollackgreen1 sentence1998Castillo-Cullather v. Pollack, 685 N.E.2d 478, 483 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hodnick v. Fidelity Trust Co.
green
2 sentences2015Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass’n (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 276, 279 (quoting Hodnick v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1932), 96 Ind. App. 342, 350 , 183 N.E. 488, 491 ); see also Ind. Const. art. 2015Raymundo v. Hammond Clinic Ass’n (1983), Ind., 449 N.E.2d 276, 279 (quoting Hodnick v. Fidelity Trust Co. (1932), 96 Ind. App. 342, 350 , 183 N.E. 488, 491 ); see also Ind. Const. art. | 2 | 1995–2015 |
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.