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 1864–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grenchik v. State Ex Rel. Pavlogreen1 sentence2019Pavlo, 373 N.E.2d 189, 193 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978). [14] In this case, Old Plank submitted its answers to interrogatories that indicated a potential right to a set-off as a defense to a garnishment. | 1 | 1 |
Castillo v. PRUDENTIAL PRO. & CAS. INS. CO.green1 sentence2009Co., 834 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (enforcing a set-off clause against an insured who received a settlement amount from the tortfeasor's liability insurer, which provided that "[playments will be reduced by any amount payable by persons responsible for the accident ... [and] will also be reduced by any amount payable under this policy or by other sources"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Delaplane v. Francis
green
2 sentences1999Additionally, in Delaplane v. Francis, 636 N.E.2d 169 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied, the set-off clause in an insurance policy provided that “any amounts payable will be reduced by: (1) A payment made or amount payable by or on behalf of any person or organization which may be legally liable ... for loss caused by an accident with an underinsured motor vehicle.” Id. at 171 . 1999Additionally, in Delaplane v. Francis, 636 N.E.2d 169 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied, the set-off clause in an insurance policy provided that “any amounts payable will be reduced by: (1) A payment made or amount payable by or on behalf of any person or organization which may be legally liable ... for loss caused by an accident with an underinsured motor vehicle.” Id. at 171 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Anderson v. Biggs
neutral
2 sentences1958Secondly, it was said in Anderson v. Biggs et al. (1948), 118 Ind. App. 266 , on page 273, 77 N. E. 2d 909 , “. . . courts of equity in Indiana have always allowed set-offs in cases where they could not be granted in law if such relief was necessary to effect clear equity and prevent irremedial injustice. . . . 1958Secondly, it was said in Anderson v. Biggs et al. (1948), 118 Ind. App. 266 , on page 273, 77 N. E. 2d 909 , “. . . courts of equity in Indiana have always allowed set-offs in cases where they could not be granted in law if such relief was necessary to effect clear equity and prevent irremedial injustice. . . . | 1 | 1958–1958 |
State v. Beach
green
2 sentences1938State v. Beach (1897), 147 Ind. 74, 90 , 46 N. E. 145 ; 9 C. 1938State v. Beach (1897), 147 Ind. 74, 90 , 46 N. E. 145 ; 9 C. | 1 | 1938–1938 |
Keightley v. Walls
neutral
1 sentence1873In Keightley v. Walls, 24 Ind. 205 , it was held that without proof of the insolvency of the defendant, the plaintiff could not by an action for that purpose obtain satisfaction of his own outstanding indebtedness, by compelling a set off of a claim in his own favor, before both had passed into judgment ; that where the demands were wholly disconnected, unless there were some special circumstances, such as insolvency or non-residence of the defendant, or other extraneous facts to form the basis of equity jurisdiction, such relief would not be granted. | 1 | 1873–1873 |
Keightley v. Walls
green
1 sentence1873In Keightley v. Walls, 27 Ind. 384 , it was shown that Keightley held a judgment against Walls; that.Walls was insolvent; that he had made a fraudulent assignment of a note owned and held by him against Keightley to one Eckels, who held it for the benefit of Walls; and it was held that the set-off should be allowed and thus satisfy both demands. | 1 | 1873–1873 |
Ashley v. Laird
neutral
1 sentence1864Ashley v. Laird and Another, 14 Ind. 222 . | 1 | 1864–1864 |
Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. Walser
green
1 sentence1864Aside from any question that may aiise as to whether the suit in the Circuit Court was between the same parties or privies, or as to the want of sufficient identification in the complaint of the paper produced as a copy of the record, under the ruling in the case of The Peoria Marine Fire Insurance Company v. Walser, supra; it is bad, because it should have been’accompanied with a complete record of all the pleadings and proceedings in the case upon which it is -founded, and especially, of the alleged set-off or defense in that case, which is claimed- to have embraced the same matters now sued | 1 | 1864–1864 |
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.