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 2010–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Small v. Centocor, Inc.green2 sentences2017But this deferential standard does not apply to the substantive rules of law, which are reviewed de novo just as they are in appeals from 2 “The doctrine of res judicata bars the litigation of a claim after a final judgment has been rendered in a prior action involving the same claim between the same parties or their privies.” MicroVote General Corp. v. Ind. Election Com’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied). 2016See id. | 4 | 4 |
Microvote General Corp. v. Indiana Election Commissiongreen2 sentences2019In essence, Father contends that “res judicata prevented the trial court from re-determining on this record in 2017 his job position and corresponding salary” that the dissolution court and this Court on appeal had “just determined in 2014 on the same general type of evidence.” Id. at 13. [11] “The doctrine of res judicata bars the litigation of a claim after a final judgment has been rendered in a prior action involving the same claim between the same parties or their privies.” MicroVote General Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). 2017But this deferential standard does not apply to the substantive rules of law, which are reviewed de novo just as they are in appeals from 2 “The doctrine of res judicata bars the litigation of a claim after a final judgment has been rendered in a prior action involving the same claim between the same parties or their privies.” MicroVote General Corp. v. Ind. Election Com’n, 924 N.E.2d 184, 191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (citing Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied). | 3 | 3 |
Eddie G. Love v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2017Love v. State, 22 N.E.3d 663, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.